Federal Register Vol. 82, No.155,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 155 (August 14, 2017)

Page Range37805-38589
FR Document

82_FR_155
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 37857 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 37824 - Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; 2017 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery ClosurePDF
82 FR 37986 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment; Election To Expense Certain RefineriesPDF
82 FR 37987 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 37817 - Arbitrage Guidance for Tax-Exempt Bonds; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 37975 - Delegation From the Secretary to the Deputy Secretary of Authorities of the Secretary of StatePDF
82 FR 37861 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
82 FR 37859 - Meeting of Board of Scientific Counselors BSC National Center for Injury PreventionPDF
82 FR 37858 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthPDF
82 FR 37985 - Notice of OFAC Sanctions ActionsPDF
82 FR 37857 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
82 FR 37908 - Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station, Unit 1PDF
82 FR 37902 - Information Collection: NRC Form 64, “Travel Voucher” (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, “Travel Voucher” (Part 2); and NRC Form 64B, “Optional Travel Voucher” (Part 2)PDF
82 FR 37822 - Revisions to Procedure 2-Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary SourcesPDF
82 FR 37825 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna FisheriesPDF
82 FR 37849 - Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting AnnouncementPDF
82 FR 37841 - Approval of Subzone Status; Universal Metal Products, Inc.; Pharr, TexasPDF
82 FR 37866 - International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil, Carfentanil, Pregabalin, Tramadol, Cannabidiol, Ketamine, and Eleven Other Substances; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 37815 - Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products: Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 37841 - Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 37843 - Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 37977 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 37846 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
82 FR 37844 - Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 37847 - Silicon Metal From the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty DeterminationPDF
82 FR 37976 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 37858 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 37857 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 37887 - Waterway Suitability Assessment for Operation of Liquefied Hazardous Gas Terminal; Port Arthur, TXPDF
82 FR 37849 - Endangered Species; File No. 21516PDF
82 FR 37869 - Division of Behavioral Health; Office of Clinical and Preventive Services; Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (BH2I)PDF
82 FR 37877 - Preventing Alcohol-Related Deaths (PARD) Through Social DetoxificationPDF
82 FR 37903 - Westinghouse Electric Company, LLCPDF
82 FR 37827 - Proposed California Federal Milk Marketing Order; Documents for Official NoticePDF
82 FR 37861 - Request for Public Comment on the Proposed Adoption of Administration for Native Americans Program Policies and ProceduresPDF
82 FR 37864 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 37900 - 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 37852 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 37854 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 37853 - Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public NoticePDF
82 FR 37856 - KEI (Maine) Power Management (III); Notice Soliciting Scoping CommentsPDF
82 FR 37854 - Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 37853 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 37855 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 37978 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
82 FR 37896 - Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 37900 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) Determination Not To Close Any Portion of the Commission's Hearing on Injury IssuesPDF
82 FR 37888 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of TestPDF
82 FR 37890 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of TestPDF
82 FR 37901 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New CollectionPDF
82 FR 37892 - Expansion of Global Entry Eligibility to Citizens of the Republic of Colombia, Citizens of the Republic of Singapore, and Citizens of SwitzerlandPDF
82 FR 37893 - Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of TestPDF
82 FR 37887 - Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 37811 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplanes; Use of Automatic Power Reserve for Go-Around Performance CreditPDF
82 FR 37806 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection SystemPDF
82 FR 37805 - Special Conditions: Garmin International, Beechcraft Corporation Model 400A Airplanes; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal AccessPDF
82 FR 37958 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, 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 37926 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, 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 37949 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1092, Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 37920 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors)PDF
82 FR 37966 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Schedule of FeesPDF
82 FR 37851 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study AreaPDF
82 FR 37898 - Certain Recombinant Factor IX Products; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 37899 - Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 37977 - Twelfth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-98PDF
82 FR 37977 - Thirtieth RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Joint Plenary With WG-44PDF
82 FR 37901 - Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit RequirementsPDF
82 FR 37910 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; 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 37917 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework and the ICC Stress Testing FrameworkPDF
82 FR 37973 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make a Correction to the Exchange Fee Schedule Related to Fees for Executions That Involve Taking Resting Interest With Non-Displayed Priority With a Displayable OrderPDF
82 FR 37939 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE's Schedule of Fees With Respect to the Options Regulatory FeePDF
82 FR 37955 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the NASDAQ Options Market LLC Rules Regarding the Options Regulatory FeePDF
82 FR 37964 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule With Respect to the Options Regulatory FeePDF
82 FR 37971 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend GEMX's Schedule of Fees With Respect to the Options Regulatory FeePDF
82 FR 37946 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise the Rules Regarding the Exchange's Options Regulatory FeePDF
82 FR 37936 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Supplementary Material .01 and .02 to NYSE American Rule 5.2E(j)(3) To Provide for the Inclusion of Cash in an Index Underlying a Series of Investment Company UnitsPDF
82 FR 37932 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Certain Adjustments, Clarifications and Corrections to the Fee Provisions for Insurance and Retirement Processing ServicesPDF
82 FR 37942 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filings of Proposed Rule Changes To Adopt the Clearing Agency Operational Risk Management FrameworkPDF
82 FR 37969 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change in Connection With Its Recent Name Change From NYSE MKT LLC to NYSE American LLC and the Related Rebranding of NYSE Amex Options to NYSE American OptionsPDF
82 FR 37884 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 37887 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 37884 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 37884 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 37885 - National Cancer Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 37885 - Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods; Announcement of Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 37976 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Rolls-Royce plcPDF
82 FR 37839 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Participant Statistical Areas ProgramPDF
82 FR 37858 - Solicitation of Input From Stakeholders Regarding the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Strategic Plan (FY 2018-2022)PDF
82 FR 37860 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 37829 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 37819 - Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone StandardPDF
82 FR 37814 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Hilo, HIPDF
82 FR 37830 - Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized ChargesPDF
82 FR 37895 - Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public TeleconferencePDF
82 FR 37817 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
82 FR 37990 - Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2018 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; Provider-Based Status of Indian Health Service and Tribal Facilities and Organizations; Costs Reporting and Provider Requirements; Agreement Termination NoticesPDF

Issue

82 155 Monday, August 14, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Marketing Orders: California Federal Milk, 37827-37829 2017-17100 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Participant Statistical Areas Program, 37839-37841 2017-17033 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37860-37861 2017-17025 Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 37861 2017-17130 Board of Scientific Counselors BSC National Center for Injury Prevention, 37859-37860 2017-17129 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 37858-37859 2017-17128 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services RULES Medicare Program: Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and Long Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2018 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Medicare and Medicaid Electronic Health Record Incentive Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Eligible Professionals; etc., 37990-38589 2017-16434 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Administration for Native Americans Program Policies and Procedures, 37861-37864 2017-17099 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Social Services Block Grant Post-Expenditure Report, 37864-37866 2017-17098 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Waterway Suitability Assessment for Operation of Liquefied Hazardous Gas Terminal: Port Arthur, TX, 37887-37888 2017-17106 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 37817-37819 2017-16485 Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 37819-37822 2017-17021 Revisions to Procedure 2: Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources, 37822-37824 2017-17123 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 37829-37830 2017-17022 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Hilo, HI, 37814-37815 2017-17004 Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System, 37806-37811 2017-17072 Garmin International, Beechcraft Corporation Model 400A Airplanes; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access, 37805-37806 2017-17071 Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplanes; Use of Automatic Power Reserve for Go-Around Performance Credit, 37811-37814 2017-17073 NOTICES Exemption Petitions: Rolls Royce plc, 37976 2017-17035 Meetings: Thirtieth RTCA SC-217 Aeronautical Databases Joint Plenary With WG-44, 37977 2017-17055 Twelfth RTCA SC-229 406 MHz ELT Joint Plenary With EUROCAE WG-98, 37977 2017-17056 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, 37830-37838 2017-16961 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 37857 2017-17237 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Appalachian Power Co., 37854-37855 2017-17089 KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC, 37856-37857 2017-17090 Combined Filings, 37852-37856 2017-17087 2017-17088 2017-17092 2017-17093 Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications, 37853-37854 2017-17091 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 37857 2017-17126 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37977-37978 2017-17115 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 37857-37858 2017-17109 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 37858 2017-17110 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, WA, 37896-37898 2017-17082 Meetings: Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public Teleconference, 37895-37896 2017-16841 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Guidance: Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products, 37815-37817 2017-17118 NOTICES International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances: Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil, Carfentanil, Pregabalin, Tramadol, Cannabidiol, Ketamine, and Eleven Other Substances, 37866-37869 2017-17119 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 37978-37986 2017-17083 2017-17127 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Subzone Approvals: Universal Metal Products, Inc.; Pharr, TX, 37841 2017-17120 Government Ethics Government Ethics Office NOTICES Requests for Comments: Office of Government Ethics Strategic Plan (FY 2018-2022), 37858 2017-17032 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (BH2I), 37869-37877 2017-17103 Preventing Alcohol-Related Deaths Through Social Detoxification, 37877-37884 2017-17102 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Arbitrage Guidance for Tax-Exempt Bonds; Correction, 37817 2017-17135 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37987 2017-17136 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Election To Expense Certain Refineries, 37986-37987 2017-17139 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China, 37844-37846 2017-17113 Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 37846-37847 2017-17114 Silicon Metal From Australia, 37843-37844 2017-17116 Silicon Metal From Brazil, 37841-37843 2017-17117 Silicon Metal From the Republic of Kazakhstan, 37847-37849 2017-17112 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof, 37899 2017-17057 Certain Recombinant Factor IX Products, 37898-37899 2017-17058 Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products), 37900 2017-17081 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 37901 2017-17078 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Parole Survey, Annual Probation Survey, and Annual Probation Survey, 37900-37901 2017-17097 Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements, 37901-37902 2017-17054 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 37884 2017-17041 National Cancer Institute, 37885 2017-17037 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 37884 2017-17038 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 37887 2017-17040 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 37884-37885 2017-17039 Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods, 37885-37887 2017-17036 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries, 37825-37826 2017-17122 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species: 2017 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure, 37824-37825 2017-17164 NOTICES Meetings: Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 37849 2017-17121 Permit Applications: Endangered Species; File No. 21516, 37849-37851 2017-17105 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area, 37851-37852 2017-17061 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Travel Voucher, Part 1; Travel Voucher, Part 2; Optional Travel Voucher, Part 2, 37902-37903 2017-17124 Confirmatory Orders: Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, 37903-37908 2017-17101 License Renewals; Applications: Entergy Operations, Inc., River Bend Station, Unit 1, 37908-37910 2017-17125 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 37920-37926 2017-17066 ICE Clear Credit LLC, 37917-37920 2017-17052 Investors Exchange LLC, 37973-37975 2017-17051 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 37910-37917, 37946-37949 2017-17046 2017-17053 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 37958-37964, 37971-37973 2017-17047 2017-17069 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 37939-37942, 37966-37969 2017-17050 2017-17065 Nasdaq MRX, LLC, 37926-37932 2017-17068 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 37949-37955, 37964-37966 2017-17048 2017-17067 National Securities Clearing Corp., 37932-37936 2017-17044 NYSE American LLC, 37969-37971 2017-17042 NYSE American, LLC, 37936-37939 2017-17045 The Depository Trust Co., 37942-37946 2017-17043 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 37955-37958 2017-17049 State Department State Department NOTICES Delegations of Authority, 37975-37976 2017-17134 Meetings: Preparation for the Fourth Session of the International Maritime Organization's Sub-Committee on Carriage of Cargoes and Containers, 37976 2017-17111 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council, 37887 2017-17074 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Automated Commercial Environment Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test, 37888-37890 2017-17080 Automated Commercial Environment Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test, 37893-37895 2017-17076 Automated Commercial Environment Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test, 37890-37892 2017-17079 Expansion of Global Entry Eligibility to Citizens of the Republic of Colombia, Citizens of the Republic Of Singapore, and Citizens of Switzerland, 37892-37893 2017-17077 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 37990-38589 2017-16434 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.

82 155 Monday, August 14, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8030; Special Conditions No. 25-698-SC] Special Conditions: Garmin International, Beechcraft Corporation Model 400A Airplanes; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for Garmin International (Garmin) for modifications to Beechcraft Corporation (Beechcraft) Model 400A airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Garmin, will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature incorporates the Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation system into the airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Garmin on August 14, 2017. We must receive your comments by September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8030 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1298; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval, and thus delivery, of the affected airplane.

In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On February 13, 2014, Garmin applied for a supplemental type certificate to install the Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation system in Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes. These airplanes, which are currently approved under Type Certificate No. A16SW, are twin-engine corporate turbojet airplanes with a maximum takeoff weight of 16,100 lbs., and seating for 7 to 9 passengers and 2 crew members.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Garmin must show that the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes, as modified by Garmin, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A16SW or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes, as modified by Garmin, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Installation of the Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation system into the airplanes.

Discussion

The Garmin G5000 satellite-based navigation-system design, installed in Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes, introduces the potential for unauthorized persons, accessing the passenger-services domain, to access the airplane-control domain and airplane information-services domain; and further may introduce security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases.

The operating systems for current airplane systems usually are proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as are more widely used commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows, because access to the design details of these proprietary operating systems is limited to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed on the Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes will use operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than proprietary operating systems currently used by avionics manufacturers.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes modified by Garmin. Should Garmin apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature for any other model included on the same type certificate, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of this feature on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Beechcraft Model 400A airplanes modified by Garmin.

1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.

2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17071 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0316; Special Conditions No. 25-699-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a high-incidence protection function that limits the angle of attack (AOA) at which the airplane can be flown during normal low-speed operation, and that cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer S.A. on August 14, 2017. We must receive your comments by September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0316 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable.

In addition, since the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received, the FAA finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On September 13, 2013, Embraer applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. A57NM to include the new Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. The Model ERJ 190-300 airplane, which is a derivative of the Embraer Model ERJ 190-100 STD airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A57NM, is a 97- to 114-passenger transport-category airplane, designed with a new wing with a high aspect ratio and raked wingtip, and a new electrical-distribution system. The maximum take-off weight is 124,340 lbs (56,400 kg).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A57NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A high-incidence protection function that limits the angle of attack (AOA) at which the airplane can be flown during normal low-speed operation, and that cannot be overridden by the flightcrew.

Discussion

The Model ERJ 190-300 airplane design has a complex, full-digital flight-control system, referred to as fly-by-wire (FBW) architecture. This FBW architecture provides closed-loop flight-control laws and multiple protection functions.

The Model ERJ 190-300 airplane is equipped with a high-incidence protection function that limits the angle of attack (AOA) at which the airplane can be flown during normal low-speed operation, and cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. The application of this AOA limit impacts the stall-speed determination, the stall characteristics and stall-warning demonstration, and the longitudinal airplane-handling characteristics. The high-incidence protection function prevents the airplane from stalling at low speeds and, therefore, a stall warning system is backed up during normal flight conditions. If the high-incidence protection function has a failure that is not shown to be extremely improbable, stall warning must be provided in a conventional manner. Also, the flight characteristics at the AOA for VCLmax (AOA at the maximum lift co-efficient and associated speed) must be suitable in the traditional sense. Per 14 CFR 21.16, therefore, special conditions are needed to address the unique features of the high-incidence protection function installed on the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane.

Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System

The current airworthiness standards do not contain adequate safety standards for the unique features of the high incidence protection system on the Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. Part I of the following special conditions are issued in lieu of the specified paragraphs of §§ 25.103, 25.145, 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and 25.1323 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or in addition to the requirements of § 25.21. Part II are in lieu of the specified paragraphs of §§ 25.103, 25.105, 25.107, 25.121, 25.123, 25.125, 25.143, and 25.207 of title 14 CFR.

Special Conditions Part I Stall Protection and Scheduled Operating Speeds

The following special conditions are in lieu of §§ 25.103, 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and 25.1323(d) or in addition to the requirements of § 25.21.

Foreword

In the following paragraphs, “in icing conditions” means with the ice accretions (relative to the relevant flight phase) as defined in 14 CFR part 25, Amendment 121, appendix C.

1. Definitions

The following are terms relating to the novel or unusual design features these special conditions address:

High incidence protection system: A system that operates directly and automatically on the airplane's flying controls to limit the maximum angle of attack that can be attained to a value below that at which an aerodynamic stall would occur.

Alpha-limit: The maximum angle of attack at which the airplane stabilizes with the high incidence protection system operating, and the longitudinal control held on its aft stop.

V min : The minimum steady flight speed in the airplane configuration under consideration with the high incidence protection system operating. See Part I, section 3 of these special conditions.

V min 1g: Vmin corrected to 1g conditions. See Part I, section 3 of these special conditions. It is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an angle of attack not greater than that determined for Vmin.

2. Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System

The capability and reliability of the high incidence protection system can be established by flight test, simulation, and analysis as appropriate. The capability and reliability required are as follows:

1. It must not be possible during pilot-induced maneuvers to encounter a stall, and handling characteristics must be acceptable, as required by section 5 of Part I of these special conditions.

2. The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the effects of wind-shears and gusts at low speeds as required by section 6 of Part I of these special conditions.

3. The ability of the high incidence protection system to accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence must be verified in icing conditions.

4. The high incidence protection system must be provided in each abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in flight following system failures.

5. The reliability of the system and the effects of failures must be acceptable in accordance with § 25.1309.

3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed

In lieu of § 25.103, the following requirements apply:

(a) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, is the final stabilized calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is decelerated until the longitudinal control is on its stop in such a way that the entry rate does not exceed 1 knot per second.

(b) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, must be determined if it is used to determine compliance with a required performance standard or other requirements demonstrations in icing or non-icing conditions with:

(1) The high incidence protection system operating normally;

(2) Idle thrust and automatic thrust system (if applicable) inhibited;

(3) All combinations of flap settings and landing gear position for which Vmin is required to be determined;

(4) The weight used when reference stall speed, VSR, is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard;

(5) The most unfavorable center of gravity allowable; and

(6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13 VSR and not greater than 1.3 VSR.

(c) The 1-g minimum steady flight speed, Vmin1g, is the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift force (normal to the flight path) equal to its weight, while at an angle of attack not greater than that at which the minimum steady flight speed of subparagraph (a) was determined. It must be determined if it is used to determine compliance with a required performance standard or other requirements demonstrations in icing or non-icing conditions.

(d) The reference stall speed, VSR, is a calibrated airspeed defined by the applicant. VSR may not be less than a 1g stall speed. VSR must be determined in non-icing conditions (and as an option, in icing conditions) and expressed as:

ER14AU17.027

(e) VCLmax is determined with:

(1) Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the stall speed;

(2) The airplane in other respects (such as flaps, landing gear, and ice accretions) in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which VSR is being used;

(3) The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required performance standard;

(4) The center of gravity position that results in the highest value of reference stall speed;

(5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system, but not less than 1.13 VSR and not greater than 1.3 VSR; and

(6) The high incidence protection system adjusted or disabled, at the option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the normal production system.

(7) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second.

4. Stall Warning

In lieu of § 25.207, the following requirements apply:

4.1 Normal Operation

If the capability requirements of the high incidence protection system are successfully demostrated, then the conditions of section 2, “Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System,” are satisfied. These conditions provide safety equivalent to § 25.207, Stall warning, so the provision of an additional, unique warning device is not required.

4.2 High Incidence Protection System Failure

Following failures of the high incidence protection system, not shown to be extremely improbable, such that the capability of the system no longer satisfies items (1), (2), and (3) of section 2, “Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System,” stall warning must be provided and must protect against encountering unacceptable stall characteristics and against encountering stall.

(a) Stall warning with the flaps and landing gear in any normal position must be clear and distinctive to the pilot and meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.

(b) Stall warning must also be provided in each abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in flight following system failures.

(c) The warning may be furnished either through the inherent aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself. If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the airplane configurations prescribed in paragraph (a) above and for the conditions prescribed in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.

(d) In non-icing conditions stall warning must provide sufficient margin to prevent encountering unacceptable stall characteristics and encountering stall in the following conditions:

(1) In power off (engine power or thrust at flight idle) straight deceleration not exceeding 1 knot per second to a speed 5 knots or 5 percent calibrated airspeed, whichever is greater, below the warning onset.

(2) In turning flight stall deceleration at entry rates up to 3 knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than 1 second after the warning onset.

(e) In icing conditions stall warning must provide sufficient margin to prevent encountering unacceptable characteristics and encountering stall, in power-off (engine power or thrust at flight idle) straight and turning flight decelerations not exceeding 1 knot per second, when the pilot starts a recovery maneuver not less than three seconds after the onset of stall warning.

(f) An airplane is considered stalled when the behavior of the airplane gives the pilot a clear and distinctive indication of an acceptable nature that the airplane is stalled. Acceptable indications of a stall, occurring either individually or in combination are:

(1) A nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested;

(2) Buffeting, of a magnitude and severity that is strong and effective deterrent to further speed reduction; or

(3) The pitch control reaches the aft stop and no further increase in pitch attitude occurs when the control is held full aft for a short time before recovery is initiated.

(g) An aircraft exhibits unacceptable characteristics during straight or turning flight decelerations if it is not always possible to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of aileron and rudder controls, or abnormal nose-up pitching occurs.

5. Handling Characteristics at High Incidence

In lieu of §§ 25.201 and 25.203, the following requirements apply:

5.1 High Incidence Handling Demonstration

In lieu of § 25.201:

(a) Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control, in the nose-up pitch, must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30° banked turns with:

(1) The high incidence protection system operating normally;

(2) Initial power conditions of:

i. Power off (engine power or thrust at flight idle); and

ii. The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5 VSR1, where VSR1 is the reference stall speed with flaps in approach position, the landing gear retracted, and maximum landing weight;

(3) Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely combination of positions;

(4) Representative weights within the range for which certification is requested; and

(5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13 V SR and not greater than 1.3 VSR.

(b) The following procedures must be used to show compliance in non-icing and icing conditions:

(1) Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second until the control reaches the stop;

(2) The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition and must then be recovered by normal recovery techniques;

(3) Maneuvers with increased deceleration rates:

(i) In non-icing conditions, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum practical entry rate; and

(ii) In icing conditions, with the anti-ice system working normally, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to 3 knots per second; and

(4) Maneuver with ice accretion prior to operation of the normal anti-ice system. With the ice accretion prior to operation of the normal anti-ice system, the requirements must also be met in deceleration at 1 knot per second. The deceleration must be continued until one second after the activation of the tactile stall warning system or three seconds after reaching full back stick, whichever occurs first. A primary ice detection system must automatically activate the ice protection.

5.2 Characteristics in High Incidence Maneuvers

In lieu of § 25.203:

In icing and non-icing conditions:

(a) Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30° banked turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:

(1) There must not be any abnormal nose-up pitching.

(2) There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching, which would be indicative of stall. However, reasonable attitude changes associated with stabilizing the incidence at Alpha limit as the longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable.

(3) There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control, by conventional use of the controls, throughout the maneuver.

(4) The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and severity that would act as a deterrent from completing the maneuver specified in paragraph 5.1(a).

(b) In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration, some degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a transient excursion beyond the stabilized Alpha limit. However, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal control on the stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuver.

(c) It must always be possible to reduce incidence by conventional use of the controls.

(d) The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim speeds associated with scheduled operating speeds such as V2 and VREF up to Alpha limit must not be unduly damped or be significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled transport airplanes.

5.3 Characteristics Up to Maximum Lift Angle of Attack

Also in lieu of § 25.201:

(a) In non-icing conditions:

Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second up to the angle of attack at which VCLmax was obtained as defined in section 3, “Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed,” must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30° banked turns in the following configurations:

(1) The high incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the normal production system;

(2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited (if applicable);

(3) Engines idling;

(4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions; and

(5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed selected by the applicant, but not less than 1.13 VSR and not greater than 1.3 VSR.

(b) In icing conditions:

Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per second up to the maximum angle of attack reached during maneuvers from paragraph 5.1(b)(3)(ii) must be demonstrated in straight flight with:

(1) The high incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the normal production system;

(2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited (if applicable);

(3) Engines idling;

(4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions, and

(5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable by the automatic trim system.

(c) During the maneuvers used to show compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics, and it must always be possible to reduce angle of attack by conventional use of the controls. The pilot must retain good lateral and directional control, by conventional use of the controls, throughout the maneuver.

6. Atmospheric Disturbances

Operation of the high incidence protection system must not adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric disturbances, nor impede the application of recovery procedures in case of wind-shear. This must be demonstrated in non-icing and icing conditions.

7. Proof of Compliance

In addition to the requirements of § 25.21, the following requirement applies:

(b) The flying qualities must be evaluated at the most unfavorable center-of-gravity position.

8. Sections 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), and 25.1323(d)

The following requirements apply:

• For § 25.145(a), add “Vmin” in lieu of “stall identification.”

• For § 25.145(b)(6), and “Vmin” in lieu of “VSW.”

• For § 25.1323(d), add “From 1.23 VSR to Vmin . . .,” in lieu of, “1.23 VSR to the speed at which stall warning begins . . .,” and, “. . . speeds below Vmin . . .” in lieu of, “. . . speeds below stall warning.”

Special Conditions Part II Credit for Robust Envelope Protection in Icing Conditions

The following special conditions are in lieu of the specified paragraphs of §§ 25.103, 25.105, 25.107, 25.121, 25.123, 25.125, 25.143, and 25.207.

1. Define the stall speed as provided in these special conditions, Part I, in lieu of § 25.103.

2. In lieu of § 25.105(a)(2)(i), the following requirement applies:

(i) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the takeoff configuration, or

3. In lieu of § 25.107(c) and (g), the following requirements apply, with additional sections (c′) and (g′):

Takeoff speeds:

(c) In non-icing conditions V2, in terms of calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the gradient of climb required by § 25.121(b) but may not be less than—

(1) V2MIN;

(2) VR plus the speed increment attained (in accordance with § 25.111(c)(2)) before reaching a height of 35 feet above the takeoff surface; and

(3) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

(c′) In icing conditions with the “takeoff ice” accretion defined in part 25, appendix C, V2 may not be less than—

(1) The V2 speed determined in non-icing conditions; and

(2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

(g) In non-icing conditions, VFTO, in terms of calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the gradient of climb required by § 25.121(c), but may not be less than—

(1) 1.18 VSR; and

(2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

(g′) In icing conditions with the “final takeoff ice” accretion defined in part 25, appendix C, VFTO, may not be less than—

(1) The VFTO speed determined in non-icing conditions.

(2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h).

4. In lieu of §§ 25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A), and 25.121(d)(2)(ii), the following requirements apply:

In lieu of § 25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A):

(A) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the takeoff configuration; or

In lieu of § 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A):

(A) The VFTO speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the en-route configuration; or

In lieu of § 25.121(d)(2)(ii):

(d)(2) The requirements of subparagraph (d)(1) of this paragraph must be met: (ii) In icing conditions with the approach ice accretion defined in appendix C, in a configuration corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which Vmin1g for this configuration does not exceed 110% of the Vmin1g for the related all-engines-operating landing configuration in icing, with a climb speed established with normal landing procedures, but not more than 1.4 VSR (VSR determined in non-icing conditions).

5. In lieu of § 25.123(b)(2)(i), the following requirements apply:

(i) The minimum en-route speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) for the en-route configuration, or

6. In lieu of §§ 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B) and 25.125(b)(2)(ii)(C), the following requirements apply:

(B) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in § 25.143(h) with the landing ice accretion defined in part 25, appendix C.

(C) 1.17 Vmin1g.

7. In lieu of § 25.143(j)(1), the following requirement applies:

(1) The airplane is controllable in a pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g load factor or lower if limited by angle of attack protection; and

8. In lieu of § 25.207, Stall warning, to read as the requirements defined in these special conditions Part I, Section 4.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 31, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17072 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0484; Special Conditions No. 25-700-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplanes; Use of Automatic Power Reserve for Go-Around Performance Credit AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is an Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System (ATTCS), referred to as an Automatic Power Reserve (APR), to set the performance level for approach-climb operation after an engine failure. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron on August 14, 2017. Send your comments by September 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0484 using any of the following methods:

Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.

Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).

Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joe Jacobsen, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2011; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable.

In addition, since the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received, the FAA finds it unnecessary to delay the effective date and finds that good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

Comments Invited

We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 airplane. The Model 700 airplane is a turbofan-powered executive-jet airplane with seating for two crewmembers and 12 passengers. This airplane will have a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Textron must show that the Model 700 airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-139, 25-141, and 25-143.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Textron Model 700 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 700 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model 700 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: An Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System, referred to as an Automatic Power Reserve, to set the performance level for approach-climb operation after an engine failure.

Discussion

Textron proposes using the ATTCS function of the Model 700 airplane during go-around and requests approach-climb performance credit for the use of the additional power. The Model 700 powerplant control system comprises a Full Authority Digital Electronic Control (FADEC) for the AS907-2-1S engine. The control system includes an ATTCS feature, referred to as Maximum Takeoff Thrust (MTO), and in the airplane flight manual (AFM), Automatic Power Reserve.

Section 25.904 and part 25, appendix I, limit the application of performance credit for ATTCS to takeoff only. Because the airworthiness regulations do not contain appropriate safety standards for approach-climb performance using ATTCS, special conditions are required to ensure a level of safety equivalent to that established in the regulations.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 700 airplane. Should Textron apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

The Textron Model 700 airplane must comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 25.904, and appendix I, and the following requirements for the go-around phase of flight:

1. Definitions

a. Takeoff/go-around (TOGA): Throttle lever in takeoff or go-around position.

b. Automatic Takeoff Thrust Control System: The ATTCS in Model 700 airplanes is defined as the entire automatic system available during takeoff and in go-around mode, including all devices, both mechanical and electrical, that sense engine failure, transmit signals, actuate fuel controls or power levers (or increase engine power by other means on operating engines to achieve scheduled thrust or power increase), and furnish cockpit information on system operation.

c. Critical time interval:

(1) When conducting an approach for landing using ATTCS, the critical time interval is defined as follows:

(i) The critical time interval begins at a point on a 2.5-degree approach glide path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting approach-climb flight path intersects a flight path originating at a later point on the same approach path that corresponds to the part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach-climb gradient. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, to the intersection of these flight paths, must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for takeoff, beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.

(ii) The critical time interval ends at the point on a minimum performance, all-engines-operating go-around flight path from which, assuming a simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, the resulting minimum approach-climb flight path intersects a flight path corresponding to the part 25 minimum one-engine-inoperative approach-climb gradient. The all-engines-operating go-around flight path, and the part 25 one-engine-inoperative approach-climb gradient flight path, originate from a common point on a 2.5-degree approach path. The period of time from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure, to the intersection of these flight paths, must be no shorter than the time interval used in evaluating the critical time interval for the takeoff, beginning from the point of simultaneous engine and ATTCS failure and ending upon reaching a height of 400 feet.

(2) The critical time interval must be determined at the altitude resulting in the longest critical time interval for which one-engine-inoperative approach-climb performance data are presented in the airplane flight manual.

(3) The critical time interval is illustrated in the following figure:

ER14AU17.028

2. Performance and system reliability requirements: The applicant must comply with the performance and ATTCS reliability requirements as follows:

a. An ATTCS failure or a combination of failures in the ATTCS during the critical time interval:

(1) Must not prevent the insertion of the maximum approved go-around thrust or power, or must be shown to be a remote event.

(2) Must not result in a significant loss or reduction in thrust or power, or must be shown to be an extremely improbable event.

b. The concurrent existence of an ATTCS failure and an engine failure during the critical time interval must be shown to be extremely improbable.

c. All applicable performance requirements of part 25 must be met with an engine failure occurring at the most critical point during go-around with the ATTCS functioning.

d. The probability analysis must include consideration of ATTCS failure occurring after the time at which the flightcrew last verifies that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate until the beginning of the critical time interval.

e. The propulsive thrust obtained from the operating engine, after failure of the critical engine during a go-around used to show compliance with the one-engine-inoperative climb requirements of § 25.121(d), may not be greater than the lesser of:

(1) The actual propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS functioning, or

(2) 111 percent of the propulsive thrust resulting from the initial setting of power or thrust controls with the ATTCS failing to reset thrust or power, and without any action by the flightcrew to reset thrust or power.

3. Thrust setting

a. The initial go-around thrust setting on each engine at the beginning of the go-around phase may not be less than any of the following:

(1) That required to permit normal operation of all safety-related systems and equipment dependent upon engine thrust or power lever position; or

(2) That are shown to be free of hazardous engine-response characteristics, and not to result in any unsafe airplane operating or handling characteristics when thrust or power is advanced from the initial go-around position to the maximum approved power setting.

b. For approval to use an ATTCS for go-arounds, the thrust-setting procedure must be the same for go-arounds initiated with all engines operating as for go-around initiated with one engine inoperative.

4. Powerplant controls

a. In addition to the requirements of § 25.1141, no single failure or malfunction, or probable combination thereof, of the ATTCS, including associated systems, may cause the failure of any powerplant function necessary for safety.

b. The ATTCS must be designed to:

(1) Apply thrust or power to the operating engine(s), following any one-engine failure during a go-around, to achieve the maximum approved go-around thrust without exceeding the engine operating limits;

(2) Permit manual decrease or increase in thrust or power up to the maximum go-around thrust approved for the airplane, under the existing conditions, through the use of the power lever. For airplanes equipped with limiters that automatically prevent the engine operating limits from being exceeded under existing ambient conditions, other means may be used to increase the thrust in the event of an ATTCS failure, provided that the means:

(i) Is located on or forward of the power levers;

(ii) Is easily identified and operated under all operating conditions by a single action of either pilot with the hand that is normally used to actuate the power levers; and

(iii) Meets the requirements of § 25.777(a), (b), and (c).

(3) Provide a means to verify to the flightcrew, before beginning an approach for landing, that the ATTCS is in a condition to operate (unless it can be demonstrated that an ATTCS failure, combined with an engine failure during an entire flight, is extremely improbable); and

(4) Provide a means for the flightcrew to deactivate the automatic function. This means must be designed to prevent inadvertent deactivation.

5. Powerplant instruments: In addition to the requirements of § 25.1305:

a. A means must be provided to indicate when the ATTCS is in the OFF or FAILED condition; and

b. If the inherent flight characteristics of the airplane do not provide adequate warning that an engine has failed, a warning system that is independent of the ATTCS must be provided to give the pilot a clear warning of any engine failure during a go-around.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 8, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17073 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0222; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-8] Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Hilo, HI AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule, technical amendment, correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects a final rule, technical amendment published in Federal Register on June 22, 2017, that amends Class E airspace designated as an extension at Hilo International, General Lyman Field, Hilo, HI. The airport name is corrected to Hilo International Airport, Hilo, HI, removing “General Lyman Field” from the airport name to match the FAA's aeronautical database. This technical amendment also corrects the airport name in Class D, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, August 17, 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert LaPlante, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4566.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

The FAA published a final rule, technical amendment in the Federal Register (82 FR 28404, June 22, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0222, amending Class E Airspace designated as an extension, removing the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status at Hilo International, General Lyman Field, Hilo, HI. Subsequent to publication, the FAA found the airport name was incorrect and is now corrected from Hilo International, General Lyman Field, to Hilo International Airport.

In making the airport name change in Class E airspace designated as an extension, the FAA realized that the airport name change for Hilo International Airport also affects Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. This technical amendment correction includes amending the above airspace areas by removing General Lyman Field from the airport name, and does not affect the boundaries or operating requirements of the airport in the associated airspace.

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.

Correction to Final Rule Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the Federal Register of June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28404) FR Doc. 2017-13048, Amendment of Class E Airspace; Hilo HI, is corrected as follows:
§ 71.1 [Amended]
Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. AWP HI D Hilo, HI [Amended] Hilo International Airport, HI (Lat. 19°43′13″ N., long. 155°02′55″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Hilo International Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Pacific Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area. AWP HI E2 Hilo, HI [Amended] Hilo International, HI (Lat. 19°43′13″ N., long. 155°02′55″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Hilo International Airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Pacific Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to a Class D or Class E Surface Area. AWP HI E4 Hilo, HI [Corrected] Hilo International Airport, HI (Lat. 19°43′13″ N., long. 155°02′55″ W.) Hilo VORTAC (Lat. 19°43′17″ N., long. 155°00′39″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3 miles each side of the Hilo VORTAC 090° radial, extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Hilo International Airport to 8.7 miles east of the Hilo VORTAC.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP HI E5 Hilo, HI [Amended] Hilo International Airport, HI (Lat. 19°43′13″ N., long. 155°02′55″ W.) Hilo VORTAC (Lat. 19°43′17″ N., long. 155°00′39″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Hilo International Airport and within 3 miles each side of the Hilo VORTAC 090° radial, extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 8.7 miles east of the VORTAC and that airspace extending from the 4.3-mile radius to the 7.4-mile radius of the Hilo International Airport extending clockwise from a line 1.8 miles southwest of and parallel to the Hilo VORTAC 321° radial to a line 3 miles north of and parallel to the Hilo VORTAC 090° radial.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 3, 2017. Byron Chew, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-17004 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 133 [Docket No. FDA-2017-D-4713] Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products: Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Notification of availability.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products: Guidance for Industry.” The guidance advises manufacturers who wish to use ultrafiltered milk (UF milk) or ultrafiltered nonfat milk (UF nonfat milk) in the production of standardized cheeses and related cheese products that, pending completion of a rulemaking regarding the use of UF milk in the production of these products, we intend to exercise enforcement discretion regarding the use of fluid UF milk and fluid UF nonfat milk in the production of standardized cheeses and related cheese products. We also intend to exercise enforcement discretion regarding the declaration of ingredients in the labeling of standardized cheeses and related cheese products when fluid UF milk and fluid UF nonfat milk are used as ingredients.

DATES:

The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2017. Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidance at any time.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

Written/Paper Submissions

Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-D-4713 for “Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products: Guidance for Industry.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terri Wenger, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-800), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2373.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Ultrafiltered Milk in the Production of Standardized Cheeses and Related Cheese Products: Guidance for Industry.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

Our regulations specify the standards of identity for cheeses and related cheese products in part 133 (21 CFR part 133). The general provisions within part 133, in part, define “milk” and “nonfat milk” that may be used in the manufacture of cheeses and related cheese products. The definitions for “milk” and “nonfat milk” in § 133.3(a) and (b), respectively, list different forms of milk and nonfat milk, including concentrated, reconstituted, and dried forms, that may be used in the making of cheeses and related cheese products. However, fluid or dried filtered forms of milk obtained through mechanical filtration of milk or nonfat milk are not included within these definitions. Therefore, while current regulations permit the use of concentrated, reconstituted, and dried forms of milk and nonfat milk as basic dairy ingredients (i.e., the only difference in these ingredients is the amount of water), they do not provide for the use of fluid or dried filtered milk or fluid or dried filtered nonfat milk as basic dairy ingredients in standardized cheeses and related cheese products.

Mechanical filtration technologies available for milk processing include ultrafiltration. For purposes of this guidance, we consider filtration to be a process whereby milk is passed over a series of semipermeable membranes with varying pore sizes. Ultrafiltration retains macromolecules and particles larger than about 0.001-0.02 micrometers. In dairy processing, ultrafiltration is typically used to retain all protein components of milk, including casein and whey proteins, while some of the lactose, minerals, and water soluble vitamins present in milk are lost along with water.

For purposes of the guidance, UF milk means raw or pasteurized milk that is passed over one or more semipermeable membranes to partially remove water, lactose, minerals, and water-soluble vitamins without altering the casein::whey protein ratio of the milk and resulting in a liquid product. UF nonfat milk is defined similarly, except that raw or pasteurized nonfat milk is used.

In the Federal Register of October 19, 2005 (70 FR 60751), we issued a proposed rule that would amend our regulations to provide for the use of fluid UF milk in the manufacture of standardized cheeses and related cheese products. We tentatively concluded that the proposed rule, if finalized, would promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and, to the extent practicable, achieve consistency with existing international standards of identity for cheeses and related cheese products.

While we have not completed the rulemaking as of August 2017, we are aware of issues regarding UF milk in the United States. In brief, due to recent developments in the export market, the United States dairy industry is experiencing an oversupply of and pricing challenges with domestically produced UF milk (Refs. 1 and 2). Additionally, we have received requests to exercise enforcement discretion while the rulemaking is pending, in part to mitigate the impact on U.S. companies producing UF milk (Ref. 3).

FDA believes that food standards should provide for flexibility in manufacturing procedures and ingredients, provided that the basic nature and essential characteristics of the food are preserved. Given the oversupply of UF milk and the pending rulemaking, through this guidance we are announcing our intent to exercise enforcement discretion regarding the use of fluid UF milk and fluid UF nonfat milk in the production of standardized cheeses and related cheese products under part 133, in addition to the other required dairy ingredients, provided that the physical, chemical, and organoleptic properties of the cheese or cheese product are not affected. FDA is also announcing its intent to exercise enforcement discretion with respect to the labeling of standardized cheeses and related cheese products, when, in addition to milk or nonfat milk, fluid UF milk or fluid UF nonfat milk is used as an ingredient, but is not declared in the ingredient statement, provided that milk or nonfat milk is declared in the ingredient statement. We are exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the labeling of fluid UF milk and fluid UF nonfat milk in recognition of the costs and logistics involved in label changes; however, we encourage industry to identify these ingredients as “ultrafiltered milk” and “ultrafiltered nonfat milk” to the extent feasible and appropriate. We intend to exercise enforcement discretion until we have completed a rulemaking process amending our regulations with respect to the issues covered by this guidance, or announce in the Federal Register our determination not to proceed with such a rulemaking.

We are issuing this guidance without prior public comment under 21 CFR 10.115(g)(2) because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate, as this guidance implements a temporary enforcement policy to address an oversupply of UF pending the completion of rulemaking regarding the use of UF milk in the production of standardized cheeses and related cheese products. The oversupply of UF milk would be worsened if we deferred exercising of enforcement discretion regarding the matters in the guidance while providing an opportunity for prior public comment. (We also note that, as we stated in the preamble to the 2005 proposed rule, we tentatively conclude that fluid UF milk can be used in standardized cheeses while maintaining the essential characteristics of those cheeses specified in the individual standards of identity in part 133 (see 70 FR 60751 at 60756 through 60757).) However, as with all Agency guidances, the public may comment on the guidance at any time. This guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Electronic Access

Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

III. References

The following references are on display in the Dockets Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

1. Letter from Senator Amy Klobuchar, Senator Al Franken, Representative Collin Peterson, and Representative Tim Walz, to President Donald J. Trump, accessed on the Web at https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/4/klobuchar-franken-peterson-walz-urge-administration-to-support-minnesota-dairy-farmers-through-strong-enforcement-of-our-trade-laws-with-canada. 2. Congressional Research Service, “New Canadian Dairy Pricing Regime Proves Disruptive for U.S. Milk Producers,” dated April 20, 2017, accessed on the Web at https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IN10692.html. 3. Letter from Michael D. Dykes, D.V.M., President and CEO, International Dairy Foods Association, to Stephen Ostroff, M.D., Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, dated June 22, 2017. Dated: August 9, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-17118 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9777] RIN 1545-BG41; 1545-BH38 Arbitrage Guidance for Tax-Exempt Bonds; Correction AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

This document contains a correction to final regulations (TD 9777) that were published in the Federal Register on Monday, July 18, 2016 (81 FR 46582). The final regulations relate to the arbitrage restrictions under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code applicable to tax-exempt bonds and other tax-advantaged bonds issued by State and local governments.

DATES:

This correction is effective August 14, 2017 and applicable July 18, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Spence Hanemann at (202) 317-6980 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final regulations (TD 9777) that are the subject of this correction are under section 148 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Need for Correction

As published, the final regulations (TD 9777) contain an error that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended by making the following correcting amendment:

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

26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

§ 1.148-11 [Amended]
Par. 2. Amend § 1.148-11(k)(1) by adding “1.148-6(d)(3)(iii)(A);” before “1.148-6(d)(4)”. Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration) .
[FR Doc. 2017-17135 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0034; FRL-9965-26-Region 9] Approval of California Air Plan Revisions, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or “the District”) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revised rule concerns emissions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter of 10 microns or less from boilers, steam generators and process heaters. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES:

This rule will be effective on September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0034. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3848, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action

On March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14496), the EPA proposed to approve the following rule into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted SJVUAPCD 4307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr 4/21/16 8/22/16

We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received one comment.

Comment: The commenter asked how the rule revisions would affect San Joaquin Valley residents, who would benefit from the revisions, and whether the project's impact on human health and the environment outweigh the costs of implementing the revisions.

Response: This comment does not provide any new information or basis for either supporting or opposing EPA's proposal. It merely poses three questions that were previously addressed by EPA's proposal and supporting docket materials. Nonetheless, out of courtesy to the commenter, we summarize our previous analysis, as follows. Prior to the rule revision, the rule exempted tree-nut pasteurizers fired exclusively on natural gas. The revisions expand the exemption to tree-nut pasteurizers fired by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). The District anticipates a handful of new LPG-fired tree-nut pasteurizers will benefit from the rule revisions, but predicts that the difference in emissions from LPG instead of natural gas will be negligible. The District states that “[T]he proposed amendment would not result in new or more stringent regulatory controls and would not affect air quality or emission limitations . . . [and that] no costs are associated with this proposed rule amendment.” 1

1 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Final Draft Staff Report: Rule 4307 (Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr), April 21, 2016.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the SJVUAPCD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 21, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(447)(i)(B)(2) and (c)(488)(i)(B) to read as follows:
§ 52.220 Identification of plan-in part.

(c) * * *

(447) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Previously approved on February 12, 2015 in paragraph (c)(447)(i)(B)(1) of this section and now deleted with replacement in (c)(488)(i)(C)(1), Rule 4307, “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr,” amended on May 19, 2011.

(488) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 4307, “Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters—2.0 MMBtu/hr to 5.0 MMBtu/hr,” amended on April 21, 2016.

[FR Doc. 2017-16485 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0150; FRL-9965-92-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Direct final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on March 9, 2017, by the State of Connecticut, through the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revision addresses both of Connecticut's ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; the Greater Connecticut area and the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. The Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment area consists of Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex counties. The Greater Connecticut nonattainment area includes the rest of the State. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective October 13, 2017 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 13, 2017. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0150 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number is (617) 918-1657; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

I. Background and Purpose II. Analysis of Connecticut's Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million (ppm). See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 50.15, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.

Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the conclusion of the designation process. The two Connecticut areas were designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2009-2011 ambient air quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of designation, both Connecticut areas were classified as marginal nonattainment areas. On March 6, 2015, EPA issued a final rule entitled, “Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements” (SIP Requirements Rule), which establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 80 FR 12264. Areas that were designated as marginal ozone nonattainment areas were required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2015, based on 2012-2014 monitoring data. See 40 CFR 51.1103. The Connecticut areas did not attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS by July 20, 2015, and therefore on April 11, 2016, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule reclassifying both Connecticut areas from marginal nonattainment areas to moderate nonattainment areas for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). Moderate areas are required to attain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS no later than July 20, 2018, six years after the effective date of the initial nonattainment designations. See 40 CFR 51.1103.

1 The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology, reasonably available control measures, major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding requirements.

Based on the initial nonattainment designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, Connecticut was required to develop a SIP revision addressing certain CAA requirements for both nonattainment areas. One component of that was a SIP addressing nonattainment new source review. See 40 CFR 51.1114. On March 9, 2017, Connecticut submitted a SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for both nonattainment areas.2 EPA's analysis of how this SIP revision addresses the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided below.

2 States have three years after the effective date of designation for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to submit SIP revisions addressing NNSR for their nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.1114. Connecticut's SIP revision certified that its SIP-approved state regulation addressing nonattainment new source review for all new stationary sources and modified existing stationary sources in the State exceeds the requirements of section 182(a)(2)(C) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. However, EPA does not believe that the two-year deadline contained in CAA section 182(a)(2)(C) applies to NNSR SIP revisions for implementing the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264, 12267 (March 6, 2015); 70 FR 71612, 71683 (November 29, 2005). The submission of NNSR SIPs due on November 15, 1992, satisfied the requirement for states to submit NNSR SIP revisions to meet the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and 173 within two years after the date of enactment of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Id.

II. Analysis of Connecticut's Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements

The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are located in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR program requirements include those promulgated in the “Phase 2 Rule” implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005)) and the SIP Requirements Rule implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the Phase 2 Rule, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions that: Set major source thresholds for NOX and VOC pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i) through (iv) and (a)(1)(iv)(A)(2); classify physical changes at a major source if the change would constitute a major source by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); consider any significant net emissions increase of NOX as a significant net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E); consider increases of VOC emissions in extreme ozone nonattainment areas as significant net emissions increases and major modifications for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); set significant emissions rates for VOC and NOX as ozone precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A) through (C) and (E); contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1) and (2); provide that the requirements applicable to VOC also apply to NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(8); and set offset ratios for VOC and NOX pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(i) through (iii) (renumbered as (a)(9)(ii) through (iv) under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS). Under the SIP Requirements Rule for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area designated nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS on April 6, 2015, must also contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements at 40 CFR 51.1105.

Connecticut's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program, established in Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) Sections 22a-174-1 (definitions), and 22a-174-3a (applicability and substantive requirements) applies to the construction and modification of stationary sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas. In its SIP revision, Connecticut certifies that the version of RCSA Sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a in the current SIP meet the federal NNSR requirements for both ozone nonattainment areas within Connecticut. EPA last approved revisions to the SIP-approved version of Connecticut's NNSR rule in 2015 addressing, among other things, the NNSR requirements that apply when a major source or major modification causes a significant impact in an area that is violating the PM2.5 ambient air quality standard.

Connecticut's SIP-approved NNSR regulation retains the NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas, even though the two nonattainment areas in the State are now classified as moderate nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Connecticut's SIP-approved NNSR regulation defines the term “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” as including the cities and towns that were historically part of the severe New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment area designated on November 15, 1990 for the 1-hr ozone NAAQS. The term “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is defined to include “all towns within the State of Connecticut, except those towns located in the severe non-attainment area for ozone.” This is the portion of the State that was historically part of the serious Greater Connecticut nonattainment area designated on November 15, 1990 for the 1-hr ozone NAAQS. The SIP's definition of “Major stationary source” then uses these terms to define the NOX and VOC emission thresholds when determining if a source is major for ozone. The SIP's major stationary source threshold for NOX and VOC in the area defined as a “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” is 25 tons per year. The SIP's major stationary source threshold for NOX and VOC in the area defined as a “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” is 50 tons per year. These thresholds for NOX and VOC are consistent with EPA regulations.

Connecticut's NNSR SIP also properly addresses the thresholds for VOC and NOX, as precursors to ozone, in the definition of “Major modification” by establishing the threshold for either of these ozone precursors at 25 tons per year. This threshold for a major modification is consistent with EPA regulations. Lastly, since Connecticut's NNSR SIP retains the definitions “Serious nonattainment area for ozone” and “Severe nonattainment area for ozone” that are based on how the State was designated nonattainment on November 15, 1990 for the 1-hr ozone standard, the State's SIP meets the anti-backsliding requirements.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving Connecticut's March 9, 2017, SIP revision addressing the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for both nonattainment areas in the State. The approval encompasses both the original designations under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS of marginal and the subsequent reclassification of both nonattainment areas to moderate. The approval also includes the applicable NNSR provisions of Connecticut's regulations that satisfy the CAA's anti-backsliding requirements. As discussed above in this notice, Connecticut's SIP retains the NNSR requirements applicable to serious and severe nonattainment areas, even though the two nonattainment areas in the State are now classified as moderate nonattainment areas. EPA has concluded that the State's submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement and meets the requirements of CAA section 110 and the minimum SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.165.

The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October 13, 2017 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by September 13, 2017.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 13, 2017 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

In addition, Connecticut was issued a finding of failure to submit, which started an 18 month sanctions clock and a 24 month Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock. See 82 FR 9158 (February 3, 2017). The 18 month sanctions clock was stopped when Connecticut submitted the SIP and we determined it complete on April 19, 2017. The 24 month FIP clock will stop upon the effective date of our final approval, October 13, 2017.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 13, 2017. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 24, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart H—Connecticut 2. Section 52.377 is amended by adding paragraph (r) to read as follows:
§ 52.377 Control strategy: Ozone.

(r) Approval. Submittal from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection dated March 9, 2017, to address the nonattainment new source review requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Greater Connecticut and the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment areas, as it meets the requirements for both the State's marginal and moderate classifications.

[FR Doc. 2017-17021 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0382; FRL-9966-25-OAR] RIN 2060-AT15 Revisions to Procedure 2—Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing revisions to Procedure 2 that were proposed in the Federal Register on November 21, 2016. Procedure 2 includes quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for particulate matter (PM) continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) used for compliance determination at stationary sources. The QA procedures specify the minimum requirements necessary for the control and assessment of the quality of PM CEMS data submitted to the EPA and other regulatory authorities. This action establishes consistent requirements for ensuring and assessing the quality of PM data measured by CEMS that meet initial acceptance requirements in Performance Specification (PS) 11 of appendix B to part 60.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0382. All documents in the docket are listed at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Kimberly Garnett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Assessment Division, Measurement Technology Group (Mail Code: E143-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; telephone number: (919) 541-1158; fax number: (919) 541-0516; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The information in this document is organized as follows:

I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me? B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information? C. Judicial Review II. Background III. Final Revisions to Procedure 2 IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

The entities potentially affected by this rule include any facility that is required to install and operate a PM CEMS under any provision of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this action is available on the Internet through the EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site, a forum for information and technology exchange in various areas of air quality management, measurement standards and implementation, etc. Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the promulgation and key technical documents on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/promulgated.html.

C. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by October 13, 2017. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that “[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.” This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, “[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final action does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of this action.

II. Background

On January 12, 2004, the EPA promulgated Procedure 2—Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources (69 FR 1786). Procedure 2, sections 10.4 (5) and (6), contain a requirement for conducting the annual Relative Correlation Audit (RCA) or Relative Response Audit (RRA) QA/QC test procedures, in which a specified amount of the required number of PM CEMS response values, or data points, must lie within the PM CEMS response range used to develop the PM CEMS correlation curve. In other words, when conducting the annual QA/QC tests, the PM CEMS response values should not be higher or lower than the values used to develop the correlation curve for that PM CEMS. Recently, as PM emission limits have been reduced and facilities have installed more robust PM emission control devices, a number of facilities have found that their PM emissions are lower than their PM CEMS correlation curve and, as a result, the facilities are now unable to meet the criteria needed to pass the annual Procedure 2 QA/QC tests. The EPA proposed to modify this language in Procedure 2 through a direct final rule (81 FR 83160; November 21, 2016) and a parallel proposed rule (81 FR 83189; November 21, 2016). In the direct final rule, the EPA stated that if the agency received any significant and relevant adverse comments to the direct final rule, it would withdraw the direct final rule and address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA stated it would not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule (81 FR 83161, November 21, 2016). The EPA received one significant and relevant adverse comment and, therefore, published a withdrawal of the direct final rule (81 FR 10711; February 15, 2017). With this action, the EPA is responding to the adverse comment and finalizing revisions to Procedure 2.

III. Final Revisions to Procedure 2

This action finalizes the changes to Procedure 2 that were proposed on November 21, 2016 (81 FR 83189), and responds to the adverse comment received in response to that proposal by addressing conflicting language in sections 10.4(5) and 10.4(6).

IV. Summary of Major Comments and Responses

A commenter stated that the revisions to Procedure 2, as proposed by the EPA on November 21, 2016, do not achieve the intended result. As the commenter points out, sections 10.4(5) and 10.4(6) still contain language which requires that a portion of the data points from the RRA and RCA “must lie within the PM CEMS output range used to develop your correlation curve.” The commenter suggested that language in sections 10.4(5)(ii) and 10.4(6)(ii) be removed. The EPA agrees with the commenter and removed the language in sections 10.4(5)(ii) and 10.4(6)(ii). In addition, the language allowing the extension of the correlation curve to accommodate points that are lower than the original curve has been moved to make it clear that it is needed only when determining if the RRA and RCA meet the ± 25 percent criteria originally contained in sections 10.4(5)(iii) and 10.4(6)(iii).

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action provides performance criteria and QA/QC test procedures for assessing the acceptability of PM CEMS performance and data quality. These criteria and QA/QC test procedures do not add information collection requirements beyond those currently required under the applicable regulation.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities in the regulated industry for which Procedure 2 applies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Procedure 2 is applicable to facility owners and operators who are responsible for one or more PM CEMS used for monitoring emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes that this action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action will help to ensure that emission control devices are operated properly and maintained as needed, thereby helping to ensure compliance with emission standards, which would benefit all affected populations.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Continuous emission monitoring systems, Particulate matter, Performance specifications, Test methods and procedures.

Dated: August 7, 2017. E. Scott Pruitt, Administrator.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 60—STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES 1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows: Authority:

42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

2. In Appendix F, Procedure 2, in section 10.4, paragraphs (5) and (6) are revised to read as follows: Appendix F to Part 60—Quality Assurance Procedures Procedure 2—Quality Assurance Requirements for Particulate Matter Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems at Stationary Sources

10.4 * * *

(5) What are the criteria for passing a RCA? To pass a RCA, you must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (5)(i) and (ii) of this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RCA criteria, it is out of control.

(i) For all 12 data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop your correlation curve.

(ii) At least 75 percent of a minimum number of 12 sets of PM CEMS and reference method measurements must fall within a specified area on a graph of the correlation regression line. The specified area on the graph of the correlation regression line is defined by two lines parallel to the correlation regression line, offset at a distance of ±25 percent of the numerical emission limit value from the correlation regression line. If any of the PM CEMS response values resulting from your RCA are lower than the lowest PM CEMS response value of your existing correlation curve, you may extend your correlation regression line to the point corresponding to the lowest PM CEMS response value obtained during the RCA. This extended correlation regression line must then be used to determine if the RCA data meets this criterion.

(6) What are the criteria to pass a RRA? To pass a RRA, you must meet the criteria specified in paragraphs (6)(i) and (ii) of this section. If your PM CEMS fails to meet these RRA criteria, it is out of control.

(i) For all three data points, the PM CEMS response value can be no greater than the greatest PM CEMS response value used to develop your correlation curve.

(ii) At least two of the three sets of PM CEMS and reference method measurements must fall within the same specified area on a graph of the correlation regression line as required for the RCA and described in paragraph (5)(ii) of this section.

[FR Doc. 2017-17123 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 170329334-7665-01] RIN 0648-XF578 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; 2017 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Temporary rule; fishery closure.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is closing the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean because the fishery has reached the 2017 catch limit. This action is necessary to ensure compliance with NMFS regulations that implement decisions of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

DATES:

Effective 12:01 a.m. local time September 1, 2017, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

NMFS prepared a plain language guide and frequently asked questions that explain how to comply with this rule; both are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0092.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jarad Makaiau, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Pelagic longline fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean is managed, in part, under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.

NMFS established a calendar year 2017 limit of 3,138 metric tons (mt) of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) that may be caught and retained in the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention Area) (82 FR 36341, August 4, 2017). NMFS monitored the retained catches of bigeye tuna using logbook data submitted by vessel captains and other available information, and determined that the 2017 catch limit would be reached by September 1, 2017.

In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(e), this rule serves as notification to fishermen, the fishing industry, and the general public that the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area will be closed during the dates provided in the DATES heading. The fishery is scheduled to reopen on January 1, 2018. This rule does not apply to the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, collectively “the territories,” as described below.

During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel may not retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, except that any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days of the start of the closure, that is, by September 15, 2017. This 14-day landing requirement does not apply to a vessel that has declared to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the current trip type is shallow-setting.

During the effective period of the restrictions, longline-caught bigeye tuna may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed if the fish are caught by a vessel with a valid American Samoa longline permit, or if the fish are landed in the territories. In either case, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The fish is not caught in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Hawaii;

(2) Other applicable laws and regulations are followed; and

(3) The vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

Bigeye tuna caught by longline gear during the closure may also be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that is included in a valid specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv).

During the closure, a U.S. vessel is also prohibited from transshipping bigeye tuna caught in the Convention Area by longline gear to any vessel other than a U.S. fishing vessel with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

The catch limit and this closure do not apply to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear outside the Convention Area, such as in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To ensure compliance with the restrictions related to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, however, the following requirements apply during the closure period (see 50 CFR 300.224):

(1) Longline fishing both inside and outside the Convention Area is not allowed during the same fishing trip. An exception would be a fishing trip that is in progress on September 1, 2017. In that case, the catch of bigeye tuna must be landed by September 15, 2017; and

(2) If a longline vessel fishes outside the Convention Area and the vessel then enters the Convention Area during the same fishing trip, the fishing gear must be stowed and not readily available for fishing in the Convention Area. Specifically, hooks, branch lines, and floats must be stowed and the mainline hauler must be covered.

The above two additional prohibitions do not apply to the following vessels:

(1) Vessels on declared shallow-setting trips pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a); and

(2) Vessels operating in the longline fisheries of the territories. This includes vessels included in a valid specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv). This group also includes vessels with valid American Samoa longline permits and vessels landing bigeye tuna in one of the territories, as long as the bigeye tuna were not caught in the EEZ around Hawaii, the fishing was compliant with all applicable laws, and the vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

Classification

There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this action, because it would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. This rule closes the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific as a result of reaching the applicable bigeye tuna catch limit. The limit is codified in Federal regulations and is based on agreed limits established by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 50 CFR 300.224(e) notifies the public that fishing prohibitions will be placed in effect when the limit is reached. NMFS forecasts that the fishery will reach the 2017 limit by September 1, 2017. Longline fishermen have been subject to longline bigeye tuna limits in the western and central Pacific since 2009. They have received ongoing, updated information about the 2017 catch and progress of the fishery in reaching the Convention Area limit via the NMFS Web site, social media, and other means. This constitutes adequate advance notice of this fishery closure. Additionally, the publication timing of this rule provides longline fishermen with seven days advance notice of the closure date, and allows two weeks to return to port and land their catch of bigeye tuna.

For the reasons stated above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this temporary rule. NMFS must close the fishery as soon as possible to ensure that fishery does not exceed the catch limit. According to NMFS stock-status-determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean are currently experiencing overfishing. NMFS implemented the catch limit to reduce the effects of fishing on bigeye tuna and restore the stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Failure to close the fishery immediately would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, in violation of Federal law and regulations that implement WCPFC decisions.

This action is required by 50 CFR 300.224 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority:

16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

Dated: August 9, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17164 Filed 8-10-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-XF534 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Temporary rule; closure of Angling category northern area trophy fishery.

SUMMARY:

NMFS closes the northern area Angling category fishery for large medium and giant (“trophy” (i.e., measuring 73 inches curved fork length or greater)) Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT). This action is being taken to prevent overharvest of the Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota.

DATES:

Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, August 11, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah McLaughlin or Brad McHale, 978-281-9260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) among the various domestic fishing categories, per the allocations established in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (2006 Consolidated HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, October 2, 2006) and amendments.

NMFS is required, under § 635.28(a)(1), to file a closure notice with the Office of the Federal Register for publication when a BFT quota is reached or is projected to be reached. On and after the effective date and time of such notification, for the remainder of the fishing year or for a specified period as indicated in the notification, retaining, possessing, or landing BFT under that quota category is prohibited until the opening of the subsequent quota period or until such date as specified in the notice.

Angling Category Large Medium and Giant Northern “Trophy” Fishery Closure

The 2017 BFT fishing year, which is managed on a calendar-year basis and subject to an annual calendar-year quota, began January 1, 2017. The Angling category season opened January 1, 2017, and continues through December 31, 2017. The currently codified Angling category quota is 195.2 mt, of which 4.5 mt is allocated for the harvest of large medium and giant (trophy) BFT by vessels fishing under the Angling category quota, with 1.5 mt allocated for each of the following areas: North of 39°18′ N. lat. (off Great Egg Inlet, NJ) (the “northern area”); south of 39°18′ N. lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico (the “southern area”); and in the Gulf of Mexico. Trophy BFT measure 73 inches (185 cm) curved fork length or greater.

Based on reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System, NMFS has determined that the codified Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota has been reached and that a closure of the northern area trophy BFT fishery is warranted. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT north of 39°18′ N. lat. by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (when fishing recreationally) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on August 11, 2017. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2017. This action is intended to prevent overharvest of the Angling category northern area trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1). NMFS previously closed the 2017 trophy BFT fishery in the southern area on March 20, 2017 (82 FR 14162, March 17, 2017) and in the Gulf of Mexico on June 7, 2017 (82 FR 26603, June 8, 2017). Therefore, as of August 11, 2017, the Angling category trophy BFT fishery will be closed in all areas for 2017.

If needed, subsequent Angling category adjustments will be published in the Federal Register. Information regarding the Angling category fishery for Atlantic tunas, including daily retention limits for BFT measuring 27 inches (68.5 cm) to less than 73 inches and any further Angling category adjustments, is available at hmspermits.noaa.gov or by calling (978) 281-9260. HMS Angling and HMS Charter/Headboat category permit holders may catch and release (or tag and release) BFT of all sizes, subject to the requirements of the catch-and-release and tag-and-release programs at § 635.26. Anglers are also reminded that all BFT that are released must be handled in a manner that will maximize survival, and without removing the fish from the water, consistent with requirements at § 635.21(a)(1). For additional information on safe handling, see the “Careful Catch and Release” brochure available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/.

HMS Charter/Headboat and Angling category vessel owners are required to report the catch of all BFT retained or discarded dead, within 24 hours of the landing(s) or end of each trip, by accessing hmspermits.noaa.gov or by using the HMS Catch Reporting App.

Classification

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

The regulations implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and amendments provide for inseason retention limit adjustments and fishery closures to respond to the unpredictable nature of BFT availability on the fishing grounds, the migratory nature of this species, and the regional variations in the BFT fishery. The closure of the northern area Angling category trophy fishery is necessary to prevent any further overharvest of the northern area trophy fishery subquota. NMFS provides notification of closures by publishing the notice in the Federal Register, emailing individuals who have subscribed to the Atlantic HMS News electronic newsletter, and updating the information posted on the Atlantic Tunas Information Line and on hmspermits.noaa.gov.

These fisheries are currently underway and delaying this action would be contrary to the public interest as it could result in excessive trophy BFT landings that may result in future potential quota reductions for the Angling category, depending on the magnitude of a potential Angling category overharvest. NMFS must close the northern area trophy BFT fishery before additional landings of these sizes of BFT occur. Therefore, the AA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment. For all of the above reasons, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

This action is being taken under 50 CFR 635.28(a)(1), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Authority:

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

Dated: August 9, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17122 Filed 8-9-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
82 155 Monday, August 14, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 1051 [Docket No. AO-15-0071; AMS-DA-14-0095] Proposed California Federal Milk Marketing Order; Documents for Official Notice AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Request for public comments.

SUMMARY:

This document announces the intention of the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to take Official Notice of documents related to the California Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) rulemaking proceeding. This document invites interested parties to submit comments on whether the documents are relevant to the material issues of the proceeding.

DATES:

Comments are due August 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Comments should be submitted at the Federal eRulemaking portal: www.regulations.gov. Comments may also be filed with the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1031-S, Washington, DC 20250-9200, Facsimile number (202) 720-9976. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register. All comments will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Hearing Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erin Taylor, Acting Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Program, STOP 0231, Room 2969-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0231, telephone: (202) 720-7311, or email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (Department) held a hearing from September 22, 2015, through November 8, 2015, regarding promulgation of a Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) in California. During the hearing, participants requested the Department take Official Notice of several documents and resources relevant to the proceeding. The Administrative Law Judge presiding over the hearing ruled that interested parties could submit requests for Official Notice of documents and resources through their post-hearing briefs, and the Department could then make a determination regarding the requests.

Two parties submitted Official Notice requests in their post-hearing briefs and provided lists and sources for the relevant documents. On February 14, 2017, the Department published in the Federal Register a recommended decision on the establishment of a California FMMO (82 FR 10634). After an initial review, the Department took Official Notice of many of the documents in the recommended decision. However, the Department did not make a formal determination regarding others.

Two comments filed in response to the recommended decision took exception to the fact that the Department did not rule upon all documents requested for Official Notice submitted in post-hearing briefs by California Dairies, Inc.; Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.; and Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the Cooperatives); and by the Dairy Institute of California (the Institute).

In response, AMS is considering taking Official Notice of these additional documents. The Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR 900.8) requires providing interested parties an opportunity to object to taking Official Notice of documents because they are inaccurate or erroneously noticed; for example, if they are not relevant to the material issues of the proceeding. This Notice serves to provide interested parties the opportunity to object to the documents below if they believe that any do not meet the requirements of 7 CFR 900.8.

A complete list of these documents, along with links and sources to access them, is available at www.ams.usda.gov/caorder. Comments should focus on whether the documents are relevant to the material issues of the California FMMO proceeding, which are as follows:

1. Whether the handling of milk in the proposed marketing area is in the current of interstate commerce, or directly burdens, obstructs, or affects interstate commerce in milk or its products;

2. Whether economic and marketing conditions in California show a need for a Federal marketing order that would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act;

3. If an order is issued, what its provisions should be with respect to:

a. Handlers to be regulated and milk to be priced and pooled under the order;

b. Classification of milk, and assignment of receipts to classes of utilization;

c. Pricing of milk;

d. Distribution of proceeds to producers; and

e. Administrative provisions.

The Department will consider any objections filed prior to making a determination in this matter.

The Department compiled the following list after reviewing the documents submitted for Official Notice, verifying or correcting the titles provided, and determining whether publically accessible sources exist. As interested parties did not provide hard copies of the documents they were requesting for Official Notice, those documents for which a source was not provided or that the Department determined to lack a publically accessible source are excluded from Official Notice consideration.

Academic Sources

• Pratt, James E., Phillip M. Bishop, Eric M. Erba, Andrew M. Novakovic, and Mark W. Stephenson: A Description of the Methods and Data Employed in the U.S. Dairy Sector Simulator, Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy, July 1997;

• Pratt, James E., Phillip M. Bishop, Eric M. Erba, Andrew M. Novakovic, and Mark W. Stephenson: Normative Estimates of Class I Prices Across U.S. Milk Markets, Cornell Program on Dairy Markets and Policy, July 1998;

• Class I Surface Maps, March 2014 and September 2014: Mark Stephenson;

• Jacobson, Robert E., et al., Research Bulletin 1105: Pricing Grade A Milk Used in Manufactured Dairy Products, Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, December 1978; and

• Baker, Burton A., and Rudolph K. Froker: The Evaporated Milk Industry Under Federal Marketing Agreements, University of Wisconsin, August 1945.

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Data and Publications

• AMS Dairy Market News, weekly reports, January 1, 2015-April 2016;

• AMS Dairy Market Statistics, annual reports, 1997-2015;

• AMS FMMO Marketing and Utilization Summary, annual, 2015;

• AMS FMMO Statistics, annual summaries, 1980-2015;

• AMS Mailbox Milk Prices, monthly, January 2012-February 2016;

• AMS Market Information Branch Publication: Measures of Growth in Federal Milk Orders, September 2016;

• AMS National Dairy Product Sales Reports, weekly, 2012-2016;

• AMS Regulatory Impact Analysis on FMMO Reform, March 1999;

• Letter to Handlers in FMMO 1 regarding temporary dumped milk policy, March 2016;

• Letter to Handlers in FMMO 1 regarding temporary dumped milk policy, December 2015;

• List of Supply Plant Systems: Upper Midwest Marketing Area, annual, 2014-2016;

• Lists of Plants and Handlers: Northeast Marketing Area, monthly, 2014-2016;

• Lists of Plants and Handlers: Pacific Northwest and Arizona Marketing Area, monthly, 2014-2016;

• Lists of Plants, Handlers, and Cooperative Associations: Upper Midwest Marketing Area, monthly, 2014-2016; and

• USDA response to industry request for a national hearing on FMMO program prices, September 17, 2012.

California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Data and Publications

• CDFA Annual Dairy Data, 2015;

• CDFA Appendix: Glossary of Dairy Terms;

• CDFA California Dairy Plant List, 2015;

• CDFA California Dairy Statistics, annual, 2014 and 2015;

• CDFA California Price Data, weighted average prices received for nonfat dry milk and volumes sold by California processors, weekly and monthly;

• CDFA CME Cheddar Cheese and Butter Prices vs. California Sales, monthly, February 2004-November 2013;

• CDFA Dairy Industry Fact Sheet, 2000;

• CDFA Dairy Manufacturing Cost Surveys (September 18, 2007; November 14, 2013; and December 9, 2015);

• CDFA Dairy Product Data, monthly, 2014-year-to-date;

• CDFA Designated Supply Handlers for Procurement, Regions 1 and 2, 2015-2016;

• CDFA Full Manufacturing Cost Survey, 2014;

• CDFA Hearing Panel Report on Class 4b Pricing, June 2015;

• CDFA Milk Production Cost Data, quarterly, 2013-2016;

• CDFA Milk Production Pooling Data, monthly, 2014;

• CDFA Dairy Review Newsletters, monthly, 2003-2016;

• CDFA Pooling Plan for Market Milk as Amended, June 2013;

• CDFA Stabilization and Marketing Plan for Market Milk as Amended, Northern California Marketing Area, August 2015;

• CDFA Stabilization and Marketing Plan for Market Milk as Amended, Southern California Marketing Area, August 2015;

• CDFA Statistics and Trends Annual Tables and Data, 2014;

• CDFA Statistics and Trends Mid-Year Review, January-June 2015;

• CDFA transcripts from Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Stabilization and Marketing Plans (Class 4b pricing formula changes), June 2015; and

• CDFA Water Quality Regulations for Dairy Operators in California's Central Valley-Overview and Compliance Cost Analysis, November 2010.

California State Statutes

• California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 21, Part 3, Chapter 1, Sections 61301-61573: Marketing of Milk and Other Dairy Products;

• California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 21, Part 3, Chapter 2, Sections 61801-62402: Stabilization and Marketing of Market Milk;

• California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 21, Part 3, Chapter 2.5, Sections 62500-62667: Milk Producer's Security Fund;

• California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 21, Part 3, Chapter 3, Sections 62700-62731: Equalization Pools; and

• California Food and Agriculture Code: Division 21, Part 3, Chapter 3.5, Sections 62750-62757: Milk Pooling.

Congressional Legislation

• 1965 Farm Bill;

• 1970 Farm Bill;

• 1985 Farm Bill;

• 2008 Farm Bill;

• 2000 Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; and

• Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005.

Economic Research Service (ERS) Publications

• ERS Dairy Data Spreadsheets: U.S. Dairy Situation at a Glance; Dairy Products Per Capita Consumption; Milk Cows and Production by State and Region; Annual Milk Production and Factors Affecting Supply; Per Capita Consumption of Selected Cheese Varieties (most current spreadsheets);

• ERS Milk Costs of Production: Costs and returns per hundredweight sold by state, annual, 2010-2014;

• ERS Milk Costs of Production: Costs and returns per hundredweight sold by size group, annual, 2014 (data set contains 2010-2014);

• ERS Milk Costs of Production: U.S. dairy costs of production per hundredweight of milk sold, monthly, 2015;

• ERS Publication: Pricing Milk and Dairy Products: Principles, Practices, and Problems, 1971;

• ERS Report to Congress: Report on the United States Department of Agriculture's Reporting Procedures for Nonfat Dry Milk, September 2007;

• ERS Situation and Outlook Reports: Feed Outlook Reports, monthly, 2014-2015; and

• ERS Situation and Outlook Reports: Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Outlook Reports (Dairy Part), monthly, 2014-2016.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Data and Publications

• NASS Dairy Products Mandatory Program Web page;

• NASS Dairy Products Prices, weekly, 1998-2012;

• NASS Dairy Products, annual summary, 1997-2015 (data for 1995-2014);

• NASS Dairy Products, monthly, January 2015-April 2016;

• NASS Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates (SB 988), data covers 1998-2002;

• NASS Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates (SB 1022), data covers 2003-2007;

• NASS Milk Cows and Production Final Estimates (SB 1036), data covers 2008-2012;

• NASS Milk Production, Disposition, and Income Annual Summary, 1995-2015;

• NASS Milk Production, monthly reports, January 2015-February 2016;

• NASS Overview of the United States Dairy Industry, September 22, 2010;

• NASS Dairy Products Prices: How Does That Work?; and

• NASS Survey Cheddar Cheese Price Data (May 23, 1997; June 27, 1997; August 1, 1997; September 5, 1997; October 10, 1997; December 19, 1997; December 29, 1997; January 23, 1998; February 20, 1998; March 20, 1998; April 24, 1998; May 29, 1998; June 26, 1998; July 31, 1998; August 28, 1998; and October 2, 1998).

USDA Office of the Chief Economist Publication

• Drought Monitor: Percentage of crops and livestock located in drought, March 2016.

Federal Government Resources

• Census Bureau data on Upper Midwest FMMO, Market Area Population;

• Energy Information Administration Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, January 2011-July 2015;

• Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics Summary to 1995; and

• Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics, Annual Issues, 1995-2012.

Federal Register Publications

• 3 FR 1945-1949 regarding the handling of milk in the New York Metropolitan Marketing Area, August 1938;

• 26 FR 7134-7141 regarding amendments to the Chicago marketing order, August 1961;

• 27 FR 799-816 regarding amendments to pricing of milk reserves and excess reserves, January 1962;

• 31 FR 7062 regarding a Puget Sound, Washington, market area expansion and amendments to producer-handler definition, May 1966;

• 39 FR 11567-11571 regarding a partial decision on emergency measures to suspend butter powder prices, March 1974;

• 44 FR 48128-48130 regarding a decision to not promulgate an order in the Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon marketing area, August 1979;

• 50 FR 32716, 32718-32719 regarding a decision to expand two marketing areas and revise location differentials in the Middle Atlantic and New York-New Jersey areas, August 1985;

• 52 FR 15951-15960 regarding termination of proceedings on proposed amendments to the Georgia and certain other marketing areas, May 1987;

• 53 FR 686-731 regarding the merger of two marketing areas in the Great Basin and Lake Mead marketing areas, January 1988;

• 53 FR 36321-36334 regarding a final decision to provide partial credits to handlers hauling surplus milk in the Texas marketing area, September 1988;

• 55 FR 25618-25669 regarding promulgation of a Carolina FMMO, June 1990;

• 56 FR 57850-57864 regarding a decision to adopt multiple component pricing for the Mid-Atlantic FMMO, November 1991;

• 58 FR 58112-58137 regarding amendments to the New England and Certain Other Marketing Areas, October 1993;

• 59 FR 8546-8565 regarding amendments to the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern Idaho-Eastern Oregon Marketing Areas, February 1994;

• 60 FR 7290-7333 regarding amendments to the New England and Other Marketing Areas, February 1995;

• 60 FR 25014-25071 regarding amendments to the Georgia and Certain Other Marketing Areas, May 1995;

• 60 FR 41833-41868 regarding amendments to the Chicago Regional and Other Marketing Areas, August 1995;

• 60 FR 43066-43089 regarding amendments to the Southern Michigan Marketing Area, August 1995;

• 64 Fed Reg. 70868-70912 regarding amendments to the New England and Other Marketing Areas, December 1999;

• 65 FR 76832-76861 regarding amendments to the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas, December 2000;

• 70 FR 74166, 7418 regarding a final decision on amendments to the Pacific Northwest and Arizona-Las Vegas Marketing Areas, December 2005;

• 71 FR 67467-67495 regarding amendments to the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas, November 2006;

• 73 FR 11194-11229 regarding amendments to the Appalachian, Florida, and Southeast Marketing Areas, February 2008;

• 73 FR 35306-35331 regarding amendments to the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas, June 2008;

• 75 FR 33534-33533 regarding amendments to the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas, June 2010; and

• 78 FR 9248 regarding a final decision to adopt changes to the make allowances and butterfat yield factor in Class III and IV price formulas, February 2013.

Authority:

7 U.S.C. 601-608.

Dated: August 8, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17100 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0150; FRL-9965-91-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Nonattainment New Source Review Permit Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve the state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted on March 9, 2017, by the State of Connecticut, through the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP), addressing the nonattainment new source review (NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The SIP revision addresses both of Connecticut's ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; the Greater Connecticut area and the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area. The Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT ozone nonattainment area consists of Fairfield, New Haven, and Middlesex counties. The Greater Connecticut nonattainment area includes the rest of the State. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before September 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0150 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Mr. Dahl's telephone number is (617) 918-1657; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the Final Rules Section of this issue of the Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this issue of the Federal Register.

Dated: July 24, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-17022 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket No. 17-169; FCC 17-91] Protecting Consumers From Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission proposes to amend its rules to prohibit carriers from misrepresenting themselves when placing telemarketing sales calls to consumers and placing unauthorized charges on their phone bills. The Commission seeks comment on ways to strengthen its rules to protect consumers from slamming and cramming and proposes to codify a rule prohibiting misrepresentations on carrier telemarketing calls to consumers that often precede a carrier switch, and proposes to codify a rule against cramming. The intended effect of this action is to prevent unscrupulous carriers from targeting vulnerable populations from committing fraud either on sales calls or when “verifying” a consumer switch.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before September 13, 2017, and reply comments are due on or before October 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by CG Docket No. 17-169 and/or FCC Number 17-91, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket No. 17-169.

Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kimberly A. Wild, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), at (202) 418-1324, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Rules and Policies Protecting Consumers from Unauthorized Carrier Changes and Related Unauthorized Charges, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document FCC 17-91, adopted on July 13, 2017, released on July 14, 2017. The full text of document FCC 17-91 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document FCC 17-91 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ (insert CG Docket No. 17-169 into the Proceeding block).

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using ECFS. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial Mail sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in § 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to: [email protected] or call CGB at: (202) 418-0530 (voice), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Document FCC 17-91 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-rules-aid-investigation-threatening-calls.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

Document FCC 17-91 seeks comment on proposed rule amendments that may result in modified information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any modified information collection requirements, the Commission will publish another notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

1. All too often, unscrupulous carriers target Americans, including those within vulnerable populations like the elderly, recent immigrants, small businesses, and non-English speakers, to carry out unauthorized carrier changes, or “slams.” These carriers misrepresent who they are and why they are calling, fraudulently verify carrier changes, and add unauthorized charges, or “crams,” onto consumers' bills. Some sales agents pretend they are calling from a consumer's existing carrier, others pretend to call about a package delivery to record a consumer saying certain key phrases like their name and “yes.” Still others bill for services never rendered or refuse to stop billing for new services even after a consumer terminates service.

2. With document FCC 17-91, the Commission seeks comment on additional steps to protect consumers from slamming and cramming. The Commission seeks to strengthen its ability to take action against slammers and crammers, and deter carriers from slamming and cramming in the first place, without impeding competition or impairing the ability of consumers to switch providers.

Background Slamming Rules

3. Section 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act or Act), makes it unlawful for any telecommunications carrier to “submit or execute a change in a subscriber's selection of a provider of telephone exchange service or telephone toll service except in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” To further protect consumers from slamming and provide them with control over their service providers, the Commission's rules allow consumers to opt in to freeze their choice of carriers. At the same time, the rules do not allow for the executing carrier to verify that the subscriber wants to change carriers, so as to avoid undue delay in authorized switches. Finally, the Commission adopted rules for calculating slamming carrier liability.

Continuing Problem

4. Notwithstanding the Commission's rulemaking and enforcement actions to date, slamming and cramming continue to be a problem. Slammers, or would-be slammers, have also crammed consumers as part of their fraud schemes. The Commission is cognizant that it must balance the benefits of the proposals in document FCC 17-91 against the burden they may place on legitimate carrier changes and third-party charges. The steps the Commission seeks comment on today to strengthen its rules seek to address the evolving practices of bad actors with respect to slamming and cramming, while not impeding competition or impairing the ability of consumers to switch providers.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

5. In document FCC 17-91, the Commission seeks comment on ways to strengthen its rules to protect consumers from slamming and cramming. The Commission believes its legal authority stems directly from sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act. The Commission has based slamming and cramming rules on these provisions of the Act in the past. The Commission notes that section 258 of the Act is clear that carriers cannot execute switches unless they do so “in accordance with such verification procedures as the Commission shall prescribe.” The Commission believes the anti-slamming steps it proposes here are “verification procedures” consistent with the authority specified in section 258 of the Act. Similarly, the Commission has found that both sections 201(b) and 258 of the Act support its truth-in-billing rules, including those to prevent cramming on consumers' bills. The Commission seeks comment on the nature and scope of its authority to adopt the rules it proposes in document FCC 17-91.

Banning Misrepresentation and Unauthorized Charges

6. The Commission's recent enforcement actions reveal that a major source of slamming is deception in the sales calls. The Commission seeks comment on proposed new rules to address sales call abuses and further reduce slamming. The Commission's current rules contain detailed verification procedures, adopted under section 258 of the Act, that specify that carriers shall not submit or execute carrier changes without authorization from the subscriber and verification of that authorization. The Commission has previously held that misrepresentations on sales calls are an unjust and unreasonable practice and unlawful under section 201(b) of the Act. Although the Commission has in place verification rules to prevent slamming, its rules do not expressly ban carrier- or carrier-agent-misrepresentations on the sales calls that typically precede a slam. The Commission thus proposes to codify, pursuant to sections 258 and 201(b) of the Act, a new § 64.1120(a)(1)(i)(A) of its rules banning misrepresentations on the sales calls and stating that any misrepresentation or deception would invalidate any subsequent verification of a carrier change, even where the submitting carrier purports to have evidence of consumer authorization (e.g., a TPV recording). The Commission believes codifying such a ban would provide even greater clarity to carriers and will aid its enforcement efforts. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are there any potential downsides to a codified rule against sales call misrepresentation? The Commission notes that its slamming rules currently do not apply to CMRS, pre-paid wireless, or interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Are such misrepresentations enough of a problem for CMRS, pre-paid wireless and interconnected VoIP and sufficient to justify extending its proposed rule to cover those services? Would such a rule impose any burden on legitimate marketing? How should the proposed rule interact with existing State slamming rules?

7. The Commission also proposes to codify a rule against cramming. While cramming has been a long-standing problem and the Commission has adopted truth-in-billing rules to help detect it, the Commission has never codified a rule against cramming. The Commission thus proposes to codify in a new § 64.2401(g) of its rules the existing prohibition against cramming that the Commission has enforced under section 201(b) of the Act. The Commission believes codifying the cramming prohibition for wireline and wireless carriers would act as a deterrent. The Commission believes codifying a ban against cramming would provide even greater clarity to carriers and will aid its enforcement. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are there any potential downsides to such a rule? The Commission's cramming rules currently do not apply to interconnected VoIP, and only some of the cramming rules apply to CMRS. Should the Commission extend this proposed rule to CMRS, pre-paid wireless and interconnected VoIP? Are there limitations on the Commission's ability to adopt the proposed cramming rule? Should this proposed rule be codified under the slamming rules as opposed to the cramming rules? The truth-in-billing rules do not define “cramming” or “telephone bill.” The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt such definitions for clarity of its rules. Many consumers today receive electronic bills and have constant online access to their telephone account showing in near real-time all fees, charges and assessments. If the Commission defines “telephone bill” in its rules, should it include the various ways that consumers can keep track of their telephone account activity?

PIC Freezes and Third-Party Billing Preferred Carrier Freezes by Default

8. The Commission's current rules allow consumers to protect themselves from slamming by “freezing” their choice of wireline providers if their local exchange carrier offers that ability. But to do so, a consumer must affirmatively opt in. Given the trend of consumers preferring to buy local and long-distance services together rather than separately, as well as emerging abusive practices in the market for resold local and long-distance services, the Commission seeks comment on making freezes the default so that consumers are automatically afforded additional protection against slamming, rather than requiring them to take extra steps to do so. The Commission believes this would give consumers more control to prevent slamming. Today, carriers must offer freezes for local, intraLATA and interLATA services and get separate authorization from consumers for each of the services the consumer chooses to freeze. A majority of consumers today purchase bundles of services rather than selecting individual services, and the Commission believes most consumers have no reason to distinguish interLATA and intraLATA services. The Commission seeks comment on eliminating the service distinctions for these purposes and having carrier freezes apply to all telephone services a consumer has with no need to seek separate authorization. The Commission believes consumers purchase CMRS and interconnected VoIP as all distance services and thus a default freeze does not make sense for these services. The Commission seeks comment on that view and whether it should consider extending default freezes to those services.

9. If the Commission were to adopt a default freeze rule, should it apply to all local exchange carriers, or only those that currently offer freezes? What effect would the Commission's proposal have on carrier billing systems and sales practices? How should consumers be notified about this change to ensure they are fully aware of the default freeze? Should the Commission change its current requirements for notifying consumers about freezes, or relax those requirements? What procedures should be put in place to lift a default freeze? The Commission seeks comment on whether its freeze proposal would affect number exhaustion by incenting carriers to issue new numbers to consumers while waiting for the freeze to be lifted. The Commission's goals are to ensure that the default freeze is a strong safeguard against slamming while not unduly burdening consumers who may want to opt out of a freeze or giving executing carriers who may be losing the customer an opportunity to behave anti-competitively. The Commission seeks comment on how to achieve these goals along with whether carriers should be able to charge for freezes.

10. What are the costs and benefits of a default freeze? For carriers that already offer consumers a freeze option, the cost to implement a default freeze should be relatively low, essentially changing a field in a preexisting database. For carriers that do not currently offer a preferred carrier freeze to their consumers, the implementation costs would presumably be greater. The benefits of a default freeze may be substantial, because would-be slammers would face significant obstacles to carrying out their intended slams. The Commission seeks comment on these views and ask commenters to provide details on costs and benefits of both implementing a default freeze and procedures to lift a default freeze. Can the Commission mitigate the costs by, for example, extending implementation deadlines and considering additional specific relief for smaller carriers? Could costs be further mitigated by applying a default freeze only to new customers and not existing ones? Should the Commission distinguish between smaller local exchange carriers and larger local exchange carriers in what rules should apply? What would be the cost savings for consumers and carriers in avoiding the expense and inconvenience of restoring service with their original carrier after a slam and seeking a refund for the unauthorized charges?

Blocking Certain Third-Party Billing by Default

11. Today, the Commission's rules do not prohibit carriers from placing third-party charges on consumers' bills without verification by the consumer, a practice that has led to cramming. Consumers who do not have a preferred long-distance provider have been crammed when a third-party carrier adds its long-distance service to the consumer's bill without authorization. Some consumers discover a slam and have their preferred carrier's service reinstated but are still billed by the slamming carrier for local or long-distance service.

12. The Commission seeks comment on requiring wireline carriers to block third-party charges for local and long-distance service—a frequent source of slamming-related cramming—by default, and only bill such charges if a consumer opts in. Do consumers generally expect to be charged for local or long-distance service by third parties? What trends, if any, could inform the Commission's understanding of how consumers make choices in the market for telephone service? How prevalent are such third-party charges? Do the natural reductions in third-party billing as a result of market changes reduce the need for the type of rule the Commission proposes? The Commission notes that the vast majority of complaints and enforcement actions appear to target the billing practices of traditional local exchange carriers, not wireless carriers or interconnected VoIP providers. Is that because wireless carriers and interconnected VoIP providers generally offer local and long-distance services as a bundle or for some other reason? Notwithstanding the lack of complaints and enforcement actions about CMRS and interconnected VoIP, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should extend its proposal to those services.

13. How exactly should an opt-in process for third-party local and long-distance service work? For example, if a carrier offered its subscribers access to information about their account online, could a simple control be added so that consumers could opt in (or later opt back out) of third-party local and long-distance service billing? What opt-in options should be available for consumers that do not have Internet access? What information, if any, should be presented to consumers before they opt in to such third-party charges? Should opting in last indefinitely, or sunset after some period of time? Or could consumers opt in for only a single service change? How should consumers be made aware of the opt-in option? Should the Commission require providers to notify consumers at the point of sale? Should such notice appear on the provider's Web site and advertising materials or on consumers' bills? The Commission notes that several carriers have committed to blocking certain non-telecommunications third-party charges in the past. The Commission seeks specific comments on the processes they used to inform consumers about these changes.

14. The Commission also seeks comment on several corner cases. For local exchange carriers that do not offer long-distance service, should opt in be required before any third-party long-distance service is charged to the consumer or only any change in third-party long-distance service? For consumers that currently subscribe to a third-party local or long-distance service, should those services be grandfathered? Or should those consumers be considered to have opted in already? And how should the Commission structure any rule to minimize the impact on single-use services—such as placing an international call through a third-party carrier or receiving a collect call—or other legitimate third-party local or long-distance services that haven't been subject to the same pattern of abuse that the Commission has seen in recent slamming and cramming cases?

15. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of an opt-in process for third-party local and long-distance charges. The Commission believes that blocking such charges would be beneficial to consumers and reduce slamming and cramming significantly. Yet the Commission recognizes that changes to carrier billing systems can be costly. The Commission believes many carriers already have the ability to block third-party charges, and seeks comment on whether this is correct, and whether there would be any challenges, including billing system and notification changes, for carriers arising from adopting an opt-in mechanism for third-party charges. What are the costs of implementing an opt-in mechanism for third-party charges? For those carriers that do not currently offer the option to block third-party charges, what costs would be associated with making that protection available to consumers and how could the Commission craft rules to minimize those costs and burdens? Would the costs to carriers be mitigated if the timeframe to implement the opt-in mechanism was extended or if the opt-in mechanism was phased in, for example, by requiring an opt-in for new customers only? Do small carriers have unique implementation costs or other burdens, and if so, how should the Commission address those issues?

Double-Checking a Switch With the Consumer

16. Rather than requiring an opt in before placing third-party local or long-distance charges on a bill, should the Commission require the executing carrier to confirm or “double-check” whether the consumer wants to switch providers before making the change? Requiring the executing carrier to double-check a change request could be a strong anti-slamming safeguard because it gives the consumer a second opportunity to confirm a switch. If the Commission were to adopt such a requirement, the Commission seeks comment on how the Commission could best implement it.

17. Would requiring that the executing carrier obtain the consumer's consent in writing or through the email address of record sufficiently protect consumers? Would mandating that the executing carrier obtain oral consent via a phone call to the consumer at the telephone number of record provide consumers with more protection from slamming? If the Commission requires the executing provider to confirm a switch request, what should the executing carrier be required to ask (e.g., “the submitting carrier says that you would like to switch to them. Is that correct?”)? Are there First Amendment implications related to prescribing the language to be used by the executing carrier? Should the executing carrier have to follow, for all switch requests, the procedures that are presently only in place when a consumer has activated a preferred carrier freeze? Should the double-check by the executing carrier be strictly limited to certain narrow questions with no opportunity for retention marketing? Should there be a deadline by which the double-check must occur? Should the executing carrier be required to notify the new carrier of the timing and outcome of the double-check? If so, should there be a timeframe within which that notice must occur? Finally, what should the consequences be if an executing carrier fails to meet the deadline? The Commission seeks comment on the effect the proposal would have on carrier billing systems and sales practices. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether its proposed double-check would have any effect on number exhaustion by incenting carriers to issue new numbers to consumers while waiting for verification and execution of the carrier change.

18. Currently, unless a consumer has activated a preferred carrier freeze, the slamming rules do not allow the executing carrier to verify whether the subscriber wants to change carriers when it receives a preferred carrier change request because of previous Commission concerns that that approach would be expensive, unnecessary, and duplicative of the submitting carrier's verification. At the time those rules were adopted, the local and long-distance markets had only been recently opened to competition, and there was concern that an executing carrier might intentionally delay the carrier change or attempt to retain the subscriber. Today, the market for wireline communications services is more established and competitive, and consumers have access to a wide variety of providers and technologies to obtain long-distance services and are more likely to purchase bundles of services from the same provider. In addition, slamming has evolved, and the rules the Commission adopted almost two decades ago have not proven effective in preventing slamming. Do market trends involving stand-alone long-distance service impact the need for the type of slamming rules the Commission proposes? Based on the marketplace today, the Commission also seeks comment on the relationship between the ease of switching voice providers and broadband adoption. The Commission seeks to avoid unintended negative consequences of its proposals. For example, would they effectively “lock” consumers into bundles of services that may not meet their current broadband needs? Finally, and fundamentally, the Commission seeks comment on the prevalence of incidences of slamming as seen in its enforcement actions versus the number of legitimate carrier changes that occur.

19. Given these changes in the marketplace and the continued and evolving problem of slamming faced by consumers, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's previous concerns about delays and anti-competitive practices that could arise from a double-check requirement are still valid. If the previous concerns are still well-founded, are those concerns now outweighed by other factors, such as ensuring that consumers are not victimized by the new forms of slamming? The Commission seeks comment on whether and how the changed circumstances since 1998 have reduced the danger of anti-competitive behavior, as well as how to structure a double-check mechanism to avoid or limit any competitive harms. Similar to its proposals above, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should extend its proposal to CMRS and interconnected VoIP providers. In the past, the Commission expressed concern that requiring verification by the executing carrier could be a de facto preferred carrier freeze without the consumer's consent that would take control away from consumers. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should adopt both a verification by the executing carrier and the default carrier freeze proposed above. Are these processes duplicative and if so, does it make sense to provide consumers with two levels of protection against slamming? Does one option benefit consumers in ways that the other does not? The Commission seeks comment on the costs to consumers, if any, of both options.

20. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits of requiring some form of secondary verification by the executing carrier before switching a consumer's long-distance provider. The Commission believes the costs of requiring the executing carrier to perform a simple double-check by phone, email or in writing would be fairly modest, yet the consumer benefit in stopping slamming would be substantial. The Commission seeks comment on these views and ask commenters to provide details on costs and benefits. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can further mitigate the costs by, for example, extending implementation deadlines of any rules adopted and considering additional specific relief for smaller carriers.

21. Section 222(b) of the Act. When it previously determined that executing carriers should not verify carrier changes, the Commission expressed concern that such verification would violate section 222(b) of the Act. Section 222(b) of the Act states that a carrier that “receives or obtains proprietary information from another carrier for purposes of providing any telecommunications service shall use such information only for such purpose, and shall not use such information for its own marketing efforts.” The Commission found that the information contained in a submitting carrier's change request is proprietary because the submitting carrier must provide information regarding the consumer's choice of long-distance providers to the executing carrier, to which the executing carrier would otherwise not have access, to obtain provisioning of service for the new subscriber. Thus, under the Commission's current rules the executing carrier can only use the information to provide service to the submitting carrier, i.e., changing the subscriber's carrier, and may not attempt to verify that subscriber's decision to change carriers.

22. The Commission notes that section 222(d)(2) of the Act provides an exception allowing the carrier to use the customer information “to protect users of those services and other carriers from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful use of, or subscription to such services.” The Commission tentatively concludes that this exception supports its proposals to allow the executing carrier to use the customer information to re-verify that the consumer wants to change providers. The Commission seeks comment on this interpretation. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a carrier indeed is using the “proprietary information” received from a submitting carrier only for “purposes of providing any telecommunications service” if it uses that information to verify a carrier switch without conducting any additional marketing. The Commission seeks comment on whether double-checking by the executing provider could be permissive, rather than required, and whether permissive double-checking would fulfill the Commission's policy goals of deterring slamming.

23. If the Commission determines that section 222 of the Act supports requiring executing carriers to confirm a switching request, it is important to note that the exceptions in section 222(d) of the Act that allow the carrier to use the consumer information for a specific purpose would not allow the re-verification process to be used for retention marketing, and any rule the Commission adopts would bar the executing carrier from using the confirmation process for marketing or anticompetitive purposes. The Commission seeks comment on this view, and on how its rules could best implement such a bar.

Other Measures Recording Sales Calls

24. The Commission's current verification rules provide that carriers shall not submit or execute carrier changes without authorization from the subscriber and verification of that authorization. The Commission seeks comment on whether submitting carriers that rely on TPVs should be required to record the entire sales call that precedes a switch. The Commission seeks comment on how to define a sales call. The Commission believes that a requirement to record all sales calls would deter misrepresentation and aid enforcement if misrepresentation does occur. The Commission seeks comment on this view.

25. If the Commission requires that sales calls be recorded, should the Commission require the same two-year retention of the recordings as it currently does for TPV calls? Should the Commission also require that sales representatives give the consumer specific information to help them understand the call's purpose, for example: (1) The identity of the company that is calling or on whose behalf the call is being made; (2) that the sales representative is not affiliated with the consumer's current long-distance, international, or other toll carrier (if true); and (3) the purpose of the call is to inquire whether the consumer is authorized to make a change to and wishes to change his or her long-distance, international, or other toll service from his or her current preferred carrier to the calling carrier. Should the Commission's rules also prohibit the sales representative from (1) making any false or misleading statements to the consumer regarding the third-party verifier or the role of the verifier, and (2) instructing the consumer in how he or she should respond to the verifier's questions? In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether recording the sales call should be voluntary as opposed to being required and whether a valid recording should serve as an affirmative defense if a slamming complaint was filed against the carrier. Further, are there First Amendment implications related to prescribing specific notifications?

26. The Commission does not believe that requiring the disclosures discussed above, as well as recording and preserving the sales call, would be costly for providers. At the same time, based on evidence from recent consumer complaints and enforcement actions indicating that sales call misrepresentations are a significant source of slamming, the Commission believes the benefits to consumers are material. The Commission seeks comment on these views and asks commenters to provide details on costs and benefits of its proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can further mitigate the costs by, for example, extending implementation deadlines and considering additional specific relief for smaller carriers.

Third-Party Verifications

27. The Commission seeks comment on whether TPVs are an effective means of providing evidence that a consumer wishes to switch carriers. Would eliminating TPVs as a verification mechanism be effective in preventing slamming and provide substantial benefits to consumers? How would the elimination of TPVs affect legitimate providers' sales efforts? If the TPV is eliminated, are there other mechanisms the Commission should put in place to verify authorization of a carrier change? Should consumers have the option to sign up for service online after the sales call has ended, or to call a designated customer service number to confirm their desire to switch long distance or other toll services? The Commission seeks comment on the impact of these or other verification mechanisms on competition. The Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of elimination of the TPV option. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can further mitigate any costs to providers by, for example, extending implementation deadlines and considering additional specific relief for smaller carriers.

28. If the Commission decides to retain TPVs as evidence of a consumer's wish to switch providers, how might it make them more difficult to falsify? The Commission's rules require that TPVs elicit certain information, including the subscriber's identity, that the person on the call is authorized and wishes to make the switch, and the telephone numbers to be switched. Should the Commission update the TPV requirements to require that consumers affirmatively state all telephone numbers to be switched, rather than, as is currently permitted, to allow the third-party verifier to read off the numbers to be switched? Because the third-party verifier must already obtain specific information during the TPV, the Commission does not believe adding this requirement represents a significant additional cost. But the Commission believes it would benefit consumers by making it more difficult to falsify TPVs.

29. Are there other ways to ensure the validity of the TPV? For example, should the Commission require certification of third-party verifiers by either carriers or the Commission? Does the Commission have authority to require such certification? The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are any current provisions in its verification requirements that it could update to make the rules clearer and easier to follow. Should the Commission eliminate the requirement that verifiers must get confirmation of each individual service sold (e.g., intraLATA and interLATA service)? Does this requirement make sense in today's bundle-oriented marketplace? The Commission asks commenters to provide details on costs and benefits of implementing these potential rule changes. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can further mitigate the costs by, for example, extending implementation deadlines and considering additional specific relief for smaller carriers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, (RFA), the Commission has prepared the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in document FCC 17-91. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on document FCC 17-91 provided on the first page of document FCC 17-91. The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 17-91, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

30. Document FCC 17-91 contains proposals regarding how to strengthen the Commission's rules to prevent slamming and cramming. Slamming is the unauthorized change of a consumer's preferred interexchange telecommunications service provider and cramming is the placement of unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill. Despite detailed slamming rules and truth-in-billing rules, thousands of consumers are still being slammed and billed for unauthorized charges. Since, 2010, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau has brought multiple actions against carriers for slamming and cramming violations. These actions have resulted in over $80 million dollars in fines and proposed forfeitures. The Commission believes that adopting the proposals in document FCC 17-91 will provide consumers with the additional safeguards they need to protect themselves from this risk.

31. Specifically, document FCC 17-91 seeks comment on whether and, if so, how: (1) The Commission should codify in a rule the prohibition against deceptive marketing and misrepresentations on the sales call; (2) the Commission should codify in a rule the prohibition against placing unauthorized charges on a consumer's telephone bill; (3) the Commission should make preferred carrier freezes the default rather than something the consumer must initiate; (4) the Commission should require consumers to opt in to third-party billing; (5) the Commission should require executing carriers to make contact with consumers to verify preferred carrier change requests prior to execution; (6) the Commission should require recording and retention of the sales call; and (7) the Commission should modify the verification rules relating to preferred carrier changes to require the consumer to affirmatively list the telephone numbers to be switched in a TPV, or update the TPV requirements to eliminate the requirement to list all services being changed, or eliminate the TPV altogether as an option to verify authorization of a carrier switch.

Legal Basis

32. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to document FCC 17-91 is contained in sections 1-4, 201(b), and 258 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201(b), 258.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

33. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration.

Wireline Carriers

34. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses.

35. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local service providers are small entities.

36. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that the RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

37. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities.

38. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, pre-paid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines this industry as “establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Other Toll Carriers can be considered small.

Wireless Carriers

39. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal Communications Service PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio SMR services. Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.

Resellers

40. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these pre-paid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

41. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services during that year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of these pre-paid calling card providers can be considered small entities.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

42. Document FCC 17-91 contains proposals regarding how to strengthen the Commission's rules to prevent slamming and cramming. Until the proposed rules are defined in full, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether the costs of compliance will be proportionate between small and large providers. The Commission seeks to minimize the burden associated with reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for the proposed rules.

43. The proposals under consideration could result in additional costs to regulated entities. These proposals may necessitate that some carriers create new processes or make changes to their existing processes which would impose some additional costs to carriers. Document FCC 17-91 proposes to require: Reverification by the executing carrier; a default carrier freeze and procedures to lift the freeze; recording of sales calls and retention of such recordings for two years; certain information be conveyed during the sales call; implementation of new marketing methods; and an explicit opt-in decision for third-party billing. These proposals may require changes to certain carrier processes. However, some carriers may already be in compliance with some of these requirements and therefore, no additional compliance efforts will be required.

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

45. The Commission proposes rules to eliminate slamming and cramming on consumers' bills. The Commission believes that any economic burden these proposed rules may have on carriers is outweighed by the considerable benefits to consumers. Consumers are currently being charged for services they never authorized and in some instances never received. In addition, consumers must expend significant time and energy trying to recoup these costs and get back to the provider of their choice. In document FCC 17-91 the Commission specifically asks how to minimize the economic impact of its proposals on small entities. For instance, the Commission seeks comment on the specific costs of the measures it discusses in document FCC 17-91, and ways it might mitigate any implementation costs, including by extending implementation deadlines for small carriers. It also particularly asks whether smaller carriers face unique implementation costs and, if so, how the Commission might address those concerns. In addition, for example, it seeks comment on alternatives for how a carrier should obtain a consumer's decision to opt in to third-party charges, if the Commission decides to adopt an “opt-in” approach. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the overall economic impact these proposed rules may have on carriers because the Commission seeks to minimize all costs associated with these proposed rules.

46. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to document FCC 17-91 and the IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

47. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Claims, Communications common carriers, Computer technology, Credit, Foreign relations, Individuals with disabilities, Political candidates, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telegraph, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k), 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 64.1120 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i) to read as follows:
§ 64.1120 Verification of orders for telecommunications services.

(a) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Authorization from the subscriber, subject to the following:

(A) Misrepresentation and/or deception on the sales call is prohibited. Authorization is not valid if there is any misrepresentation and/or deception when making the sales call.

(B) [Reserved]

3. Amend § 64.2401 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 64.2401 Truth-in Billing Requirements.

(g) Prohibition against unauthorized charges. Carriers shall not place or cause to be placed on any telephone bill charges that have not been authorized by the subscriber. For purposes of this subsection, telephone bill means any bill that contains charges for an interstate telecommunications service.

[FR Doc. 2017-16961 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
82 155 Monday, August 14, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE U.S. Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Participant Statistical Areas Program AGENCY:

U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

To ensure consideration, submit written comments, on or before October 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions to Robin A. Pennington, U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233 (or via the internet at [email protected]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

Following Census Bureau guidelines, the Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) allows participants to review and suggest modifications to the boundaries for block groups, census tracts, census county divisions (CCDs), and census designated places (CDPs). Additionally, tribal government designees can review or propose changes for tribal statistical areas, which include: Tribal block groups (TBGs), tribal census tracts (TCTs), CDPs, tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs), state designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs), state reservations,1 Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs), Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSA), and OTSA tribal subdivisions. Participants, usually geographers or planners, are representatives from tribal, state, county, or local governments, and planning agencies. The Census Bureau contacts participants from the 2010 PSAP and invites tribal, state, county, or local governments, and planning agencies to the 2020 PSAP. The statistical boundaries delineated in PSAP reflect localized knowledge, meet Census Bureau-established criteria and guidelines, and are intended to better meet data user needs. These standard or tribal statistical geographies are reviewed and refined once every ten years in advance of each decennial census.

1 State reservations are not statistical areas, but they are included in PSAP for administrative reasons.

The PSAP geographies represent statistical units for the tabulation and dissemination of small area data from the decennial census, the American Community Survey (ACS), and other Census Bureau programs and surveys. While legal boundaries, such as cities and counties, allow the Census Bureau to publish data by those areas, local governments often need data for planning by smaller units, such as neighborhoods. PSAP is a unique program initiated and executed by the Census Bureau to allow local and regional governments to break larger geographic areas into smaller units so that they can receive 2020 Census and ACS data by these smaller units and better plan local services. PSAP occurs between March 2018 and October 2020 and has three primary components:

1. PSAP Internal Review.

2. PSAP Delineation.

3. PSAP Verification.

The primary participants are tribal governments, regional planning agencies, and councils of governments. Individual counties and incorporated places may participate in the program if they have the resources or better local knowledge of their geography. State agencies may also act on behalf of non-tribal, local governments that lack the resources to participate in the program.

1—PSAP Internal Review

From March 2018 through May 2018, Census Bureau staff will contact 2010 Census PSAP participants to solicit participation in the 2020 Census PSAP. During this time, Census Bureau staff will also research and identify contacts where the Census Bureau has no 2010 Census PSAP participant contact information. Census Bureau staff will encourage designated 2020 Census PSAP contacts to reach out to tribal, state, county and local contacts, as well as planning organizations to ensure additional stakeholders have the opportunity to be involved in the 2020 Census PSAP.

In July 2018, all tribal, state, county, or local governments, and planning agencies receive an official invitation package by mail. The participant receives a Contact Update Form that they fill out and return to the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau then sends reminder packages to governments that do not respond in the time period mentioned on the Contact Update Form. Census Bureau staff perform an internal review of PSAP entities prior to the distribution of materials to the partners. This internal review ensures each of the statistical areas meets the criteria as defined. Partners will have an option to start with statistical areas from 2010 or the Census Bureau proposed areas for 2020.

2—Program Delineation

In December 2018, the Census Bureau notifies program participants of the start of the delineation phase. The Census Bureau conducts delineation of the 2020 PSAP boundaries using the web-based Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS), a customized geographic information system (GIS) based on an open-source platform. Participants can either download the materials and software online from the Census Bureau's Web site or have them shipped on DVDs. Tribal participants have the additional option to use Census Bureau-provided paper maps for the delineation. Participants have a maximum of 120 days from the date of receipt of materials to complete and submit statistical geography updates to the Census Bureau. The delineation phase occurs between December 2018 and July 2019. Then, in July 2019, the Census Bureau sends follow-up letters to inform participants when the verification phase will start.

3—Program Verification

The verification phase allows participants to review the proposed edits from Census Bureau geographers. The Census Bureau sends a prepaid postcard to participants asking them to verify, accept, or reject the final version of the proposed plan, which is available online or by paper maps for tribal participants. Participants have 90 calendar days to review updates. Census Bureau staff contacts non-respondents through a follow-up mail-out and follow-up telephone calls. Once the Census Bureau receives the postcard with the participants' approval or acceptance of the final verification plan, the Census Bureau finalizes the 2020 statistical boundaries. This phase occurs between December 2019 and April 2020.

II. Method of Collection

The Census Bureau offers two methods of collection for the 2020 Census PSAP: GUPS submission (electronic) and paper map submission. The Census Bureau uses several formats to collect information and updates for statistical boundaries during the internal review, delineation, and verification phases. The Census Bureau collects updated contact information from participants who choose to participate in the program online, by email, and by telephone. The Census Bureau-provided software, GUPS, is the only method of response for state and local governments. Some tribal participants only have the option to use the paper map submission (TDSAs, ANVSAs, STDSAs, OTSAs, and OTSA tribal subdivisions).

GUPS Submission

The Census Bureau developed GUPS to provide (1) a free digital update option to those participants lacking an existing GIS and (2) standardized tools and functions enabling participants to navigate quickly and accurately through the update process. In addition, the standardized GUPS submissions enable Census Bureau staff to review, process, and incorporate submissions quickly and accurately into its database. Participants can download GUPS materials via the Web site or request DVDs of the materials via mail.

Participants use GUPS to review their updated standard or tribal statistical geographies already delineated by the Census Bureau. The Census Bureau designs two types of packages: One for GUPS participants who are delineating or reviewing standard statistical geographies, and one for tribal statistical geography review.

A. The 2020 Census PSAP package for standard statistical geographies contains:

(1) Cover letter from the Director of the Census Bureau.

(2) 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) Information Guide.

(3) 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) Respondent Guide.

(4) Quick reference guides for county and local governments. A one-page document providing criteria for each statistical geography eligible for updates as part of PSAP:

(a) Overview.

(b) Block groups.

(c) Census tracts.

(d) Census county divisions (CCDs).

(e) Census designated places (CDPs).

(5) GUPS Quick Start Online Download.

(6) GUPS Quick Start DVD Download.

(7) DVD for GUPS and DVD for Spatial Data.

(8) Postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes.

(9) Delineation and verification prepaid postage postcards.

B. The typical PSAP package for tribal statistical geographies contains:

(1) Cover letter from the Director of the Census Bureau.

(2) 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) Tribal Information Guide.

(3) 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) Geographic Update Partnership Software (GUPS) Tribal Respondent Guide.

(4) Quick reference guides for tribal governments. A one-page document providing criteria for each statistical geography eligible for updates as part of PSAP:

(a) Overview.

(b) Census designated places (CDPs).

(c) Census county divisions (CCDs).

(d) Tribal block groups (TBGs).

(e) Tribal census tracts (TCTs).

(f) Tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs).

(g) State designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs).

(h) Alaska Native village statistical areas (ANVSAs).

(i) Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSAs).

(j) OTSA tribal subdivisions.

(5) GUPS Quick Start Online Download.

(6) GUPS Quick Start DVD Download.

(7) DVD for GUPS and DVD for Spatial Data.

(8) Postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes.

(9) Delineation and verification prepaid postage postcards.

Paper Map Submission Only

Submission using paper maps is the only option offered to tribal governments and state tribal liaisons whose spatial data are not available in GUPS. The participant receives a large paper map and draws the boundary updates on the maps using pencils provided in the package. The participant uses the postage-paid envelope to submit the annotated map to the Census Bureau and then Census Bureau digitizes the map. The typical PSAP paper map submission package contains:

(1) Cover letter from the Director of the Census Bureau.

(2) 2020 Census Participant Statistical Areas Program (PSAP) Tribal Paper Respondent Guide.

(3) Quick reference guides for tribal governments. A one-page document providing criteria for each statistical geography eligible for updates as part of PSAP:

(a) Overview.

(b) Census designated places (CDPs).

(c) Census county divisions (CCDs).

(d) Tribal block groups (TBGs).

(e) Tribal census tracts (TCTs).

(f) Tribal designated statistical areas (TDSAs).

(g) State designated tribal statistical areas (SDTSAs).

(h) Alaska Natives village statistical areas (ANVSAs).

(i) Oklahoma tribal statistical areas (OTSAs).

(j) OTSA tribal subdivisions.

(4) Set of maps of their statistical geographic entities.

(5) Supplies for updating paper maps.

(6) Postage-paid envelope to submit boundary changes.

(7) Delineation and verification prepaid postage postcards.

III. Data OMB Control Number

Form Number: 20PSAP-F-500—State Recognized Tribes Update Form. 20PSAP-F-510—Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-511—Product Preference Form. 20PSAP-F-520—State Tribal Liaison Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-530—Federally Recognized Tribe Contact Update Form. 20PSAP-F-540—Federally Recognized Tribe Product Preference Form.

Type of Review: Regular submission.

Affected Public: All Federally or state recognized Indian tribes and Alaska Natives in the United States, states, counties, local governments, and planning agencies.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,801.

Estimated Time per Response: Between 7 and 606 hours, estimated average 40 hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 152,040.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $4,523,190.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Section 6.

IV. Request for Comments

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

Summarization of comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. Comments will also become a matter of public record.

Sheleen Dumas, PRA Department Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17033 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-75-2017] Approval of Subzone Status; Universal Metal Products, Inc.; Pharr, Texas

On May 10, 2017, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by McAllen Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 12, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 12, on behalf of Universal Metal Products, Inc., in Pharr, Texas.

The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (82 FR 25240, June 1, 2017). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 12B was approved on July 14, 2017, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 12's 873.5-acre activation limit.

Dated: August 8, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17120 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-851] Silicon Metal From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from Brazil. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

DATES:

Effective August 14, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Palmer or George Ayache, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202) 482-2623, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017.1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

1See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

2See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Kazakhstan: Notice of Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017).

3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Brazil,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

Scope Comments

In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I.

4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

5See Initiation Notice.

6See Memorandum, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

Methodology

The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7

7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

In making these findings, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

8See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

Alignment

On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Brazil.9 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway.10 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise.

9See Initiation Notice, 82 FR 16356.

10See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017).

As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, based on a request made by the petitioner.11 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed.

11See Letter from the petitioner, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,” dated July 10, 2017.

All-Others Rate

Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

In this investigation, the Department preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA (LIASA). Therefore, the only rate for an individually-examined respondent that is not zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available is the rate calculated for Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda. (DC Silicio). Consequently, the rate calculated for DC Silicio is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

Preliminary Determination

The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda12 3.69 Ligas de Aluminio S.A.—LIASA 52.07 All-Others 3.69
    Suspension of Liquidation

    12 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Dow Corning Silicio do Brasil Indústria e Comércio Ltda.: Palmyra Recursos Naturais Exploração e Comércio Ltda. and Dow Corning Metais do Pará IND.

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.13 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation 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.

    13See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations.

    Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Alignment V. Injury Test VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-17117 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-602-811] Silicon Metal From Australia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to a producer/exporter of silicon metal from Australia. The period of investigation is January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective August 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson or John Anwesen, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-0131, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017.1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from Australia,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Australia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    6See Memorandum, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Alignment

    On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Australia.8 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway.9 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise.

    8See Initiation Notice.

    9See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017).

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway based on a request made by the petitioner.10 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations for Australia, Brazil, and Norway, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed.

    10See Letter from the petitioner, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,” dated July 10, 2017.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    The Department calculated an individual estimated countervailable subsidy rate for Simcoa Operations Pty. Ltd. (Simcoa), the only individually examined producer/exporter in this investigation. Because the only individually calculated rate is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the estimated weighted-average rate calculated for Simcoa is the rate assigned to all-other producers and exporters, pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Simcoa Operations Pty Ltd 11 16.23 All-Others 16.23
    Suspension of Liquidation

    11 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Simcoa: Silicon Metal Company of Australia Pty Ltd., Microsilica Pty Ltd., and Simcoa International Pty Ltd.

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties its calculations and analysis performed in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the publication date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance at a date to be determined. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.12 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation 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.

    12See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of these investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of these investigations.

    Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Alignment V. Injury Test VI. Subsidies Valuation VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-17116 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-054] Certain Aluminum Foil From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil) from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    August 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Corrigan at (202) 482-7438, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on March 30, 2017.1 On May 17, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 15688 (March 30, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation, 82 FR 22646 (May 17, 2017).

    3See Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Affirmative Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is aluminum foil from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage, (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice as well as additional language proposed by the Department. The Department intends to issue its preliminary decision regarding comments concerning the scope of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations in the preliminary determination of the companion AD investigation.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.6

    6See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    The Department notes that, in making these findings, it relied, in part, on facts available and, because it finds that one or more respondents did not act to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, it drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.7 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero and de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the Department preliminarily assigned rates based entirely on facts available to Loften Aluminum (Hong Kong) Limited (Loften HK), as well as Manakin Industries, LLC (Manakin Industries). Therefore, the only rates that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, are the rates calculated for Dingsheng Aluminum Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd. (Dingsheng HK) and Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd. (Zhongji). Consequently, a simple average of the rates calculated for Dingsehng HK and Zhongji is also assigned as the rate for all-other producers and exporters.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Dingsheng Aluminum Industries (Hong Kong) Trading Co., Ltd 8 28.33 Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., Ltd 9 16.56 Loften Aluminum (Hong Kong) Limited 80.97 Manakin Industries, LLC 10 80.97 All-Others 22.45
    Suspension of Liquidation

    8 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Dingsheng HK: Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Teemful Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Five Star Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou DingCheng Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Luoyang Longding Aluminum Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Dingsheng Import & Export Co., Ltd.; and Walson (HK) Trading Co., Limited.

    9 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Zhongji: Shantou Wanshun Package Material Stock Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Huafeng Aluminum Industry Co., Ltd.; and Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co., (HK) Ltd.

    10 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department preliminarily finds that Manakin Industries and Suzhou Manakin Aluminum Processing Technology Co., Ltd., effectively function by joint operation as a trading company. Therefore, the rate for Manakin Industries also applies to Suzhou Manakin Aluminum Processing Technology Co., Ltd. For additional information, see Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties in this preliminary determination within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i)(1) of the Act, the Department intends to verify the information relied upon in making its final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the last verification report is issued in this investigation. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.11 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation 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.

    11See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy, performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope.

    Excluded from the scope of this investigation is aluminum foil that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing materials on only one side of the aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.

    Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above. The products under investigation are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of this proceeding may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope Comments IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Injury Test VI. Application of the CVD Law to Imports From the PRC VII. Subsidies Valuation VIII. Benchamrks and Interest Rates IX. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences X. Analysis of Programs XI. ITC Notification XII. Disclosure and Public Comment XIII. Verification XIV. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-17113 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marcia E. Short, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-1560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On August 1, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the June Initiation Notice1 in which the Department inadvertently initiated an antidumping duty administrative review of Polyester Staple Fiber from Taiwan (A-583-833) covering the period May 1, 2016, through April 30, 2017. The Department did not intend to initiate a review with respect to this order. Instead, the Department intended to correct the May Initiation Notice2 in which the Department inadvertently included TFM North America, Inc. in the initiation notice with respect to the antidumping duty administrative review of Certain Stillbenic Optical Brightening Agents (A-583-848) covering the period May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017. The Department only intended to initiate a review with respect to Teh Fong Min International Co. Ltd. In addition, in the June Initiation Notice the Department misspelt Teh Fong Min International Co. Ltd. as The Fong Min International Co. Ltd.3 This notice serves as a correction to the June Initiation Notice.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; 82 FR 35749 (August 2, 2017) (June Initiation Notice).

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; 82 FR 31292 (June 6, 2016) (May Initiation Notice).

    3See June Initiation Notice, 82 FR at 35749.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. James Maeder, Senior Director, perfoming the Duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17114 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-834-808] Silicon Metal From the Republic of Kazakhstan: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of silicon metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan). The period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective August 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terre Keaton Stefanova or Rebecca Janz, 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) 482-1280 or (202) 482-2972, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 703(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on April 4, 2017.1 On May 16, 2017, the Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation and the revised deadline is now August 7, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 Tau-Ken Temir LLP (Tau-Ken Temir), a producer and exporter of silicon metal from Kazakhstan, is the sole mandatory respondent for which we have determined there were exports during the period of investigation to the United States. A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 16356 (April 4, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Silicon Metal From Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Countervailing Duty Investigations, 82 FR 22490 (May 16, 2017).

    3See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Silicon Metal from the Republic of Kazakhstan,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is silicon metal from Kazakhstan. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.6 The Department preliminarily is not modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. See Appendix I.

    4See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    5See Initiation Notice.

    6See Memorandum, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated June 27, 2017 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 701 of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, the Department preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In its questionnaire responses, Tau-Ken Temir refused to provide the Department with requested information or analyze whether its cross-owned companies received countervailable subsidies.8 Furthermore, the Government of Kazakhstan's (GOK)'s initial questionnaire response was wholly deficient with respect to an allegation that electricity was sold to Tau-Ken Temir for less than adequate remuneration, and its supplemental response regarding this allegation was untimely filed.9 Thus, the Department has relied on facts available as part of its analysis. Additionally, because we find that Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK did not act to the best of their abilities to respond to the Department's requests for information and, therefore, impeded this investigation, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.10 For further information, see “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    8See Tau-Ken Temir's Supplemental Affiliation Response, dated May 15, 2017 (Tau-Ken Temir May 15, 2017 SAFFR).

    9See GOK's June 1, 2017 Initial Questionnaire Response (GOK June 1, 2017 IQR).

    10See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Alignment

    On March 28, 2017, the Department initiated this countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of silicon metal from Kazakhstan.11 On the same day, the Department also initiated antidumping duty (AD) investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway.12 This CVD investigation and the AD investigations of Australia, Brazil, and Norway cover the same class or kind of merchandise.

    11See Initiation Notice, 82 FR 16356.

    12See Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 82 FR 16352 (April 4, 2017).

    As noted in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(4), the Department is aligning the final CVD determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion AD investigations of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway based on a request made by the petitioner.13 Consequently, the final CVD determination will be issued on the same date as the final AD determinations for Australia, Brazil, and Norway, which are currently scheduled to be issued no later than December 18, 2017, unless postponed.

    13See Letter from the petitioner, “Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan; Countervailing Duty Investigations; Request for Alignment of Final Determinations,” dated July 10, 2017.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 703(d) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for companies not individually examined. This rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated subsidy rates established for those companies individually examined, excluding any zero or de minimis rates and any rates based entirely under section 776 of the Act. Pursuant to section 705(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Act, if the individual estimated countervailable subsidy rates established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated subsidy rate for all-other producers or exporters.

    In this investigation, the Department preliminarily assigned a rate based entirely on facts available to Tau-Ken Temir. Accordingly, we are using “any reasonable method” to establish the all-others rate. We find that it is reasonable to rely on the rate established for Tau-Ken Temir as the all-others rate, particularly because there is no other information on the record that can be used to determine an all-others rate.14

    14See, e.g., Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 79 FR 59221 (October 1, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from India: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 77 FR 64468, 64470 (October 22, 2012); and Certain Potassium Phosphate Salts from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Termination of Critical Circumstances Inquiry, 75 FR 30375 (June 1, 2010).

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following estimated countervailable subsidy rates exist:

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Tau-Ken Temir LLP 15 120.00 All-Others 120.00
    Suspension of Liquidation

    15 As discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, the Department has found the following companies to be cross-owned with Tau-Ken Temir LLP: JSC NMC Tau-Ken Samruk and LLP Silicon Mining.

    In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(B) and (d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the rates indicated above.

    Disclosure

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of the public announcement of, where there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily applied facts available with an adverse inference to the individually examined company Tau-Ken Temir in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied facts available rate is based solely on the corporate income tax rate in Kazakhstan, there are no calculations to disclose.

    Verification

    Because both Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK did not provide information requested by the Department, and the Department preliminarily determines that Tau-Ken Temir and the GOK have been uncooperative, we do not intend to conduct verification.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.16 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this investigation 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.

    16See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, whether any participant is a foreign national, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, the Department will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its determination. If the final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final injury determination before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after the final determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 7, 2017. Carole Showers, Executive Director, Office of Policy performing the duties of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers all forms and sizes of silicon metal, including silicon metal powder. Silicon metal contains at least 85.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon, and less than 4.00 percent iron, by actual weight. Semiconductor grade silicon (merchandise containing at least 99.99 percent silicon by actual weight and classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2804.61.0000) is excluded from the scope of this investigation.

    Silicon metal is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.1000 and 2804.69.5000 of the HTSUS. While HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope remains dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Respondent Selection VI. Injury Test VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Calculation of the All-Others Rate IX. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-17112 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF604 Permanent Advisory Committee To Advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; Meeting Announcement AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a public meeting of the Permanent Advisory Committee (PAC) to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPFC) on September 12, 2017.

    DATES:

    The meeting of the PAC will be held via conference call on September 12, 2017, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. HST (or until business is concluded). Members of the public may submit written comments; comments must be received by September 7, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be conducted via conference call. For details on how to call in to the conference line or to submit comments, please contact Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; telephone: 808-725-5036; email: [email protected] Documents to be considered by the PAC will be sent out via email in advance of the conference call. Please submit contact information to Emily Crigler (telephone: 808-725-5036; email: [email protected]) at least 3 days in advance of the call to receive documents via email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Emily Crigler, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office; 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818; telephone: 808-725-5036; facsimile: 808-725-5215; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), the Permanent Advisory Committee, or PAC, has been formed to advise the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. Members of the PAC have been appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the U.S. Commissioners to the WCPFC. The PAC supports the work of the U.S. National Section to the WCPFC in an advisory capacity. The U.S. National Section is made up of the U.S. Commissioners and the Department of State. NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office provides administrative and technical support to the PAC in cooperation with the Department of State. More information on the WCPFC, established under the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, can be found on the WCPFC Web site: http://wcpfc.int/.

    Meeting Topics

    The purpose of the September 12, 2017, conference call is to discuss outcomes of: The 2017 regular session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC13), the 2017 regular session of the WCPFC Northern Committee (NC13), and the Intersessional Meeting to progress the draft Bridging CMM on Tropical Tuna. There will also be a discussion on topics relevant to the subsequent regular session of the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC13).

    Special Accommodations

    The conference call is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Emily Crigler at 808-725-5036 at least ten working days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6902 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17121 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF431 Endangered Species; File No. 21516 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, have received an application from Virginia Electric and Power Company, D.B.A. Dominion Virginia Power (Dominion) for an incidental take permit, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, for activities associated with the otherwise lawful continued operation and maintenance of the Dominion Chesterfield Power Station (CPS) in Chesterfield, VA. We are considering issuing a 10-year permit to the applicant that would authorize take of ESA-listed Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) from the Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segment (DPS) incidental to otherwise lawful activities associated with the withdrawal of cooling water from the James River and entrainment and impingement sampling required by the Clean Water Act. Pursuant to the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we announce the availability of Dominion's ITP application and draft habitat conservation plan (HCP), as well as our draft environmental assessment (EA), for public review and comment. We provide this notice to seek comments from the public and Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments.

    DATES:

    To allow for timely processing of the permit application, we must receive your comments no later than September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application is available for download and review at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/esa_review.htm under the section heading ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) Permits and Applications and at http://www.regulations.gov. The application is also available upon written request or by appointment in the following office: Protected Resources Division, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930; phone (978) 281-9328.

    Submit your comments by including NOAA-NMFS-2017-0051, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.

    1. Go to www.regulations.gov/!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0051,

    2. Click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields

    3. Enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written information to Julie Crocker, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, Protected Resources Division, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

    Instructions: We may not consider comments if they are sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the specified period. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.) confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive or protected information submitted voluntarily by the sender is publicly accessible. We will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). We will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats, only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Crocker, (978) 282-8480.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We received an initial draft application from Dominion in December 2016 and a complete application on April 10, 2017, for an ITP to take federally listed Atlantic sturgeon over a 10-year period. The ITP would authorize take resulting from continued operations of the facility, including impingement and entrainment in the cooling water intake system and collection during studies and sampling required by section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. A conservation program to minimize and mitigate for the impacts of the incidental take would be implemented by Dominion as described in the draft HCP.

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA), we prepared an EA that describes the proposed action, issuance of an ITP to Dominion, and possible alternatives and analyzes the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the human environment. We will evaluate whether the EA's analysis is adequate to support a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the “take” of species listed as endangered or threatened. The ESA defines “take” to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. However, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental take” is defined by the ESA as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA requires an ITP applicant to submit an HCP that specifies the steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking. Regulations governing ITPs for threatened and endangered species are found at 50 CFR 222.307.

    The CPS is a coal-fueled power station in Chesterfield, Virginia in the upper tidal portion, approximately river mile 82 (river kilometer, rkm, 132), of the James River. It has been in operation since 1945. It operates pursuant to a permit issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program). CPS has a design intake flow of approximately 1,090 million gallons per day (MGD), at least 25 percent of which is used exclusively for cooling purposes, and is therefore subject to the Clean Water Act section 316(b) existing facility rule (79 FR 48300, August 15, 2014).

    Dominion is seeking a permit for the incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon for a term of 10-years. Incidental take may occur as a result of operation of the cooling water intakes and performance of studies required to comply with Clean Water Act 316(b). Additional activities considered, but for which take is not expected include, dredging, constituent discharge, thermal discharge, vessel movements, and shoreline and structure maintenance. The permit application includes Dominion's consideration of the potential effects to shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). However, Dominion does not anticipate incidental take of shortnose sturgeon because shortnose sturgeon rarely occur in the James River.

    Dominion estimates the take of up to 846 Atlantic sturgeon larvae per year from the Chesapeake Bay DPS due to entrainment in the Dominion CPS cooling water intakes. Dominion estimates the take of up to two juvenile, subadult or adult Atlantic sturgeon from the Chesapeake Bay DPS over a ten-year period as a result of impingement at the Dominion CPS intakes.

    Conservation Plan

    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA specifies that no permit may be issued unless an applicant submits an adequate HCP. Dominion's proposed HCP describes measures designed to minimize, monitor, and mitigate the incidental take of Atlantic sturgeon. Dominion's proposed HCP includes support for two research initiatives to increase knowledge of Atlantic sturgeon in the James River. The first would build on the existing knowledge of the genetic structure of cohorts spawning in the James River. The second would characterize Atlantic sturgeon spatial and temporal use of the upper tidal portion of the James River. The HCP also includes monitoring of incidental take. Other monitoring and mitigation actions will be undertaken as required.

    The proposed action is the issuance of an ITP and implementation of the proposed HCP. Dominion considered two alternatives to the proposed action in its HCP: (1) No change to existing operations, studies and maintenance at CPS, and (2) avoiding and minimizing permitted activities (e.g., modifying water withdrawals; modifying the cooling water intake structure; not conducting or not continuing the planned CWA 316(b) studies; not dredging and/or dredging less frequently; not using barges or vessels for the shipment or delivery of bulk materials; not performing or reducing shoreline and structure maintenance activities at CPS).

    National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with NEPA, we analyzed the impacts of the proposed issuance of an ITP and implementation of the HCP, and alternatives. Based on this analysis and any new information resulting from public comment, we will determine if there are any significant impacts caused by the proposed action. We have prepared a draft EA on the proposed action and have made it available for public inspection online or in person at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office (see Availability of Documents).

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and the National Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the application, associated documents, and submitted comments received to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We will also evaluate whether issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue a permit. If the requirements are met, we will issue the permit to the applicant.

    We will publish a record of our final action in the Federal Register.

    Authority:

    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17105 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF561 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to the U.S. Navy Training and Testing Activities in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing Study Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy (Navy) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the training and testing activities conducted in the Atlantic Fleet Training and Testing (AFTT) Study Area from October 2018 through October 2023. Pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3225. The mailbox address for providing email comments is [email protected] NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size.

    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Egger, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS; phone: (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability

    An electronic copy of the Navy's application may be obtained online at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental.htm#applications. The Navy released a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Overseas EIS (OEIS) for the on June 30, 2017. A copy of the draft EIS, which would also support NMFS' proposed rulemaking under the MMPA, is available at www.aftteis.com.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional taking of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) if certain findings are made and regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    Incidental take authorizations shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such taking are set forth.

    NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment).

    Summary of Request

    On June 16, 2017, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take individuals of 39 marine mammal species by Level A and B (behavioral) harassment incidental to training, testing, and routine military operations (all categorized as military readiness activities) from the use of sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations, air guns, and impact pile driving/vibratory extraction. In addition, the Navy is requesting nine mortalities of four marine mammal species during ship shock trials, and three takes (not to exceed two from any individual stock) by injury or mortality from vessel strikes over the five-year period. One marine mammal species, the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), has designated critical habitat in the AFTT Study Area. The Navy's training and testing activities would occur over five years beginning October 2018. On August 4, 2017, the Navy sent an amendment to its application and Navy's application was considered final and complete.

    This will be NMFS' third rule making for AFTT activities under the MMPA. NMFS published the first rule effective from January 22, 2009 through January 22, 2014 on January 27, 2009 (74 FR 4844) and the second rule effective from November 14, 2013 through November 13, 2018 on December 4, 2013 (78 FR 73009). For this third rule making, the Navy is proposing to conduct similar sonar activities in the proposed rulemaking as they have conducted over the past nine years in the previous two rule makings.

    Description of the Specified Activity

    The Navy's training and testing activities to be conducted within the AFTT Study Area (includes areas of the western Atlantic Ocean along the east coast of North America, portions of the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico, covering approximately 2.6 million square nautical miles of ocean area, oriented from the mean high tide line along the U.S. coast and extends east to the 45-degree west longitude line, north to the 65-degree north latitude line, and south to approximately the 20-degree north latitude line) over the course of 5 years. Please refer to the application, specifically Figure 1.1-1 for a map of the Study Area and Figures 2.2-1 through Figure 2.2-3 for additional maps of the range complexes and testing ranges. The following types of training and testing, which are classified as military readiness activities pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act, would be covered under the LOAs (if authorized): amphibious warfare (in-water detonations), anti-submarine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), expeditionary warfare (in-water detonations), surface warfare (in-water detonations), mine warfare (sonar and other transducers, in-water detonations), and other (sonar and other transducers, impact pile driving/vibratory extraction, air guns).

    The Navy has proposed a suite of mitigation measures for marine mammals that could be implemented during training and testing activities in the AFTT Study Area. Procedural mitigation generally involves: (1) The use of one or more trained Lookouts to diligently observe for specific biological resources within a mitigation zone, (2) requirements for Lookouts to immediately communicate sightings of specific biological resources to the appropriate watch station for information dissemination, and (3) requirements for the watch station to implement mitigation (e.g., halt an activity) until certain recommencement conditions have been met. Mitigation measures are also conducted in specific mitigation zones and can consist of a variety of measures including, but not limited to: Conducting a certain number of major training exercise per year, not planning or avoid planning major training exercises, minimizing or not conducting active sonar, conducting a certain amount of hull-mounted mid-frequency active sonar per year, not expending explosive or non-explosive ordnance, and implementing vessel speed reductions.

    The Navy also proposes to undertake monitoring and reporting efforts to track compliance with take authorizations and to help investigate the effectiveness of implemented mitigation measures in the AFTT Study Area. This can include Adaptive Management, the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program, the Strategic Planning Process, and Annual Monitoring and Exercise and Testing Reports. As an example, under the Integrated Comprehensive Monitoring Program, the monitoring relating to the effects of Navy training and testing activities on protected marine species are designed to increase in the understanding of the likely occurrence of marine mammals in the vicinity of the action (i.e., presence, abundance, distribution, and density of species) and to increase the understanding of the nature, scope, or context of the likely exposure of marine mammals to any of the potential stressors associated with the action. Please refer to Chapter 13 of the Navy's application for full details on monitoring and reporting proposed by the Navy.

    Information Solicited

    Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy's request (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will consider all information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy's request and NMFS' potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy's testing and training activities for the AFTT Study Area.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17061 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP10-996-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP.

    Description: Dominion Energy Cove Point LNG, LP submits tariff filing per: DECP—2017 Report of Operational Sales and Purchases of Gas.

    Filed Date: 07/31/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170731-5099.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 14, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-961-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Update List of Non-Conforming Service Agreements (Dalton) to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 08/03/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170803-5115.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-962-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Filing of Tenaska Capacity Release Umbrella Agreement to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 08/03/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170803-5156.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-920-001.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits tariff filing per 154.205(b): Amendment to Filing in Docket No. RP17-920-000 to be effective 8/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 08/04/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5077.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 16, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-963-000.

    Applicants: NJR Energy Services Company, Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition for Temporary Waiver of Capacity Release of NJR Energy Services Company, et al.

    Filed Date: 08/04/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5088.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 11, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-964-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Joint Settlement Extension Agreement (Phase II/PCBs, RP88-67, et. al.) of Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Filed Date: 08/04/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170804-5166.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 16, 2017.

    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. 2017-17093 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-155-000.

    Applicants: Bayshore Solar C, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Bayshore Solar C, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5071.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-162-018; ER10-2611-020; ER11-2044-023; ER11-3876-022; ER13-1266-015; ER15-2211-012.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, CalEnergy, LLC, Cordova Energy Company LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, Saranac Power Partners, L.P.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Bishop Hill Energy II LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2260-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-08-08_SA# 1927 IPL-ITCMW 3rd Revised LGIA (P001) to be effective 8/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5069.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2261-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: LGIA Antelope Expansion 2 LLC Antelope Solar 2 Project SA No. 195 TOT762 to be effective 8/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2262-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Original Service Agreement No. 4097, Queue No. AA1-019 to be effective 9/25/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5108.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2263-000.

    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-08-08 Petition for Tariff Waiver—Availability Assessment of Hours 2018 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF17-1274-000.

    Applicants: Shaw Industries Group, Inc.

    Description: Form 556 of Shaw Industries Group, Inc.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5122.

    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 8, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17088 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. RM98-1-000] Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.

    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication.

    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).

    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

    Docket No. File date Presenter or requester Prohibited: 1. CP15-554-000 7-25-2017 Mass Mailing 1 2. CP15-554-000 7-25-2017 William Alexander 3. CP15-554-000 7-26-2017 Mass Mailing 2 4. CP15-554-000 7-27-2017 Mass Mailing 3 5. CP15-554-000 7-31-2017 Gwendolyn Wilkins 6. CP15-554-000 8-4-2017 John Wagner Exempt: 1. CP17-40-000 7-28-2017 FERC Staff 4 2. CP17-40-000 7-31-2017 FERC Staff 5 3. P-1494-000 8-1-2017 Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation 4. P-1494-000 8-1-2017 U.S. Congress Members 6 5. CP15-554-000 8-1-2017 U.S. House Representative Bob Goodlatte 6. CP15-93-000 8-3-2017 U.S. Congress Members 7 7. P-1494-000 8-3-2017 Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of Energy & Environment 1 Six letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 2 Three letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 3 Three letters have been sent to FERC Commissioners and staff under this docket number. 4 Agency Conference Call Summary for call on July 27, 2017 with United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and Illinois Department of Agriculture. 5 Agency Project Conference Call Summary for call on July 27, 2017 with Spire STl Pipeline L.L.C. 6 Senators James M. Inhofe and James Lankford. House Representatives Markwayne Mullin and Jim Bridenstine. 7 Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. and Senator Maria Cantwell. Dated: August 8, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17091 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-55-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective 7-31-2017 to be effective 7/31/2017; Filing Type: 980.

    Filed Date: 8/2/17.

    Accession Number: 201708025059.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-960-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates—Eco-Energy 8946929 to be effective 8/2/2017 under RP17-960 Filing Type: 570.

    Filed Date: 08/02/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170802-5091.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 14, 2017.

    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 3, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17092 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 739-034] Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

    a. Application Type: Shoreline Management Plan Update.

    b. Project No: 739-034.

    c. Date Filed: June 14, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.

    e. Name of Project: Claytor Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the New River, in Pulaski County, Virginia.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

    h. Applicant Contact: Elizabeth Parcell, Process Supervisor Senior; Appalachian Power Company, 40 Franklin Road SW., P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24011-2121; (540) 985-2441.

    i. FERC Contact: Krista Sakallaris; (202) 502-6302; [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: September 6, 2017.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-739-034. Comments emailed to Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee filed an update to the Claytor Project's Shoreline Management Plan (SMP), pursuant to Section 3.5 of the current SMP and Article 414 of the project's license. The revised SMP includes minor revisions and updates throughout the plan, including formatting changes and updates to existing tables to reflect current data. Other notable changes include: Clarification of terms used (i.e., steep slope, automatic boat cover, high-density multi-use, etc.); amending vegetation removal regulations; adding permitting exceptions; and incorporating various changes requested by agencies during the consultation process.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17089 Filed 8-11-17; 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: EC17-153-000.

    Applicants: Bayshore Solar B, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Bayshore Solar B, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-154-000.

    Applicants: Sagebrush, a California partnership, Sagebrush Asset Holdings, LLC, Sky River LLC.

    Description: Application For Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Sky River LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5190.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2144-007; ER10-3308-026; ER11-2005-024; ER11-2007-021; ER11-2009-024; ER11-2011-024; ER11-2013-024; ER11-2014-024; ER11-2016-021; ER11-3989-020; ER12-1223-021; ER12-1829-016; ER12-2201-015; ER12-2311-015; ER12-2528-014; ER14-2145-007; ER16-2363-003.

    Applicants: Beebe 1B Renewable Energy, LLC, Beebe Renewable Energy, LLC, Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC, Cassia Gulch Wind Park, LLC, Cow Branch Wind Power, LLC, CR Clearing, LLC, Criterion Power Partners, LLC, Fourmile Wind Energy, LLC, Harvest WindFarm, LLC, Harvest II Windfarm, LLC, High Mesa Energy, LLC, Michigan Wind 1, LLC, Michigan Wind 2, LLC, Shooting Star Wind Project, LLC, Tuana Springs Energy, LLC, Wildcat Wind, LLC, Wind Capital Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Exelon Sellers.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-795-002.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: ISO-NE Filing to Re-Establish Statutory Action Date to be effective 3/15/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/8/17.

    Accession Number: 20170808-5034.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/29/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2256-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cost Allocation for Brookline and Morgan Transmission Projects (Part 1 of 2) to be effective 10/6/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5173.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2257-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Cost Allocation for Brookline and Morgan Transmission Projects (Part 2 of 2) to be effective 10/6/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2258-000.

    Applicants: Rock Falls Wind Farm LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Rock Falls Wind Farm Initial Market-Based Rate Application Filing to be effective 10/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2259-000.

    Applicants: Seville Solar One LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised SLA Rate Schedule No. 2 to be effective 8/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 8/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170807-5181.

    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 8, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17087 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2809-034] KEI (Maine) Power Management (III); Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.

    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.

    b. Project No.: P-2809-034.

    c. Date filed: April 28, 2017.

    d. Applicant: KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (KEI Power).

    e. Name of Project: American Tissue Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On Cobbosseecontee Stream, in the Town of Gardiner, Kennebec County, Maine. There are no Federal or tribal lands within the project boundary.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Lewis C. Loon, Operations and Maintenance Manager, USA, KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC, 423 Brunswick Avenue, Gardiner, ME 04345; (207) 203-3026.

    i. FERC Contact: John Baummer, 202-502-6837, or [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: September 7, 2017.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2809-034.

    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.

    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    l. The existing American Tissue Project consists of: (1) A 256-foot-long, 23-foot-high cut granite, stone and brick masonry dam that includes a 61-foot-long west abutment section, a 100-foot-long spillway section with 12-inch-high flashboards and a crest elevation of 122.3 feet mean sea level (msl), and a 95-foot-long east abutment section with an intake structure that includes: (a) Trashracks with 2-inch clear spacing, (b) a manually-operated headgate that controls flow to the penstock, and (c) three low level outlets at an elevation of about 100 feet msl for releasing minimum flows to the bypassed reach; (2) an approximately 5.5-acre, 1,000-foot-long impoundment with a normal maximum water surface elevation of 123.3 feet msl; (3) a 280-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter underground steel penstock; (4) a 37-foot-long, 34-foot-wide concrete and wooden powerhouse containing a single 1.0-MW turbine-generator unit; (5) a 250-foot-long, 12-kilovolt transmission line; (6) a tailrace; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    KEI Power operates the project in a run-of-river mode with an average annual generation of 5,430 megawatt-hours. KEI Power proposes to release year-round minimum flows of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) (or inflow to the impoundment, whichever is less), to the bypassed reach to enhance habitat for aquatic organisms and provide downstream passage for alewives. KEI Power also proposes to release a minimum flow of 52 cfs (or inflow, whichever is less) to the tailrace to protect aquatic resources in the downstream reach. In addition, KEI Power proposes to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage facility, construct and operate a new upstream passage facility for American eel, and release 40 cfs through the low level gates of the dam from September 1 to November 15 to facilitate downstream eel passage.

    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to address the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above.

    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    o. Scoping Process: The Commission staff intends to prepare a single Environmental Assessment (EA) for the American Tissue Hydroelectric Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. The EA will consider both site-specific and cumulative environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

    Commission staff does not propose to conduct any on-site scoping meetings at this time. Instead, we are soliciting comments, recommendations, and information, on Scoping Document 1 (SD1) issued on August 8, 2017.

    Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the EA were distributed to the parties on the Commission's mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17090 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC. (Ninth floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:

    Audit Division Recommendation Memorandum on the Illinois Republican Party (IRP) (A13-09) Draft Advisory Opinion 2017-06: Stein and Gottlieb Management and Administrative Matters

    Individuals who plan to attend and require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting date.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Laura E. Sinram, Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17237 Filed 8-10-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. A copy of the agreement is available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 012108-006.

    Title: The World Liner Data Agreement.

    Parties: Maersk Line A/S; CMA CGM S.A.; COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd.; Hamburg-Sud; Hapag-Lloyd AG; Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A.; Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.; United Arab Shipping Company S.A.G.; Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.; Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement; Nile Dutch Africa Line B.V.; Zim Integrated Shipping Services Limited; and Independent Container Line Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes ANL and Hanjin as parties and adds COSCO and Nile Dutch as parties to the Agreement.

    Agreement No.: 012300-001.

    Title: The COSCO Shipping/KL/YMUK/ELJSA Slot Allocation and Sailing Agreement.

    Parties: COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd., Limited; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Yang Ming (UK) Ltd.; Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd.; and the Evergreen Line Joint Service Agreement.

    Filing Party: Eric. C. Jeffrey, Esq.; Nixon Peabody LLP; 799 9th Street NW., Suite 500; Washington, DC 20001.

    Synopsis: The amendment deletes Hanjin Shipping as a member of the agreement, changes the name of the agreement accordingly, and updates the name of COSCO Shipping.

    Agreement No.: 012439-001.

    Title: THE Alliance Agreement.

    Parties: Hapag-Lloyd AG and Hapag-Lloyd USA LLC (acting as one party); Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; and Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.

    Filing Party: David F. Smith, Esq.; Cozen O'Conner; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW.; Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment authorizes the Parties to the Agreement to form, contribute funds to, develop rules for, and administer a contingency fund designed to protect against the effects of one of the parties experiencing financial distress or an insolvency event. The parties have requested expedited review.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. JoAnne D. O' Bryant, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17126 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-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 29, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Deborah Viergutz, Ellenton, Florida; Lisa A. Verzani, Helena, Montana; Donald Verzani and Patricia L. Verzani, both of Portland, Oregon; and Jenny Wilcynski and Mike Wilcynski, both of Big Sky, Montana; to retain or acquire voting shares of First State Bancorp, Inc., Randolph, Nebraska, and for approval as members of the Viergutz Family Group to control voting shares of First State Bancorp, Inc., and thereby own shares of First State Bank, both of Randolph, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 9, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17109 Filed 8-11-17; 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 7, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston (Prabal Chakrabarti, Senior Vice President) 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210-2204. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Mascoma Mutual Financial Services Corporation, Lebanon, New Hampshire; to become a bank holding company by acquiring voting shares of Macsoma Savings Bank, Lebanon, New Hampshire.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 9, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17110 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS Solicitation of Input From Stakeholders Regarding the U.S. Office of Government Ethics Strategic Plan (FY 2018-2022) AGENCY:

    Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is providing notice of request for public comment on its draft Strategic Plan (Plan). The Plan describes OGE's priorities for the next five years. OGE will consider all comments received by the deadline. You may access the Plan at https://www.oge.gov/web/OGE.nsf/News+Releases/B0EE73EF1ADC7AF38525816F0075CB6F?opendocument, or you may obtain a copy of the plan by sending an email request to [email protected]

    DATES:

    All comments must be received by August 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail, Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917, Attention: Nicole Stein, OGE Strategic Plan.

    Instructions: All submissions must include OGE's agency name and the words “Strategic Plan.” All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Comments may be posted on OGE's Web site, www.oge.gov. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments generally will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nicole Stein, Chief, Agency Assistance Branch, U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Suite 500, 1201 New York Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005-3917; Telephone (202) 482-9255; TTY: 800-877-8339; Email: [email protected]

    Dated: August 8, 2017. David J. Apol, Acting Director, U.S. Office of Government Ethics.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17032 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6345-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Docket Number: NIOSH 278] Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee. This meeting is open to the public. The public comment period is from 12:30 p.m. to 12:45 p.m. Please note that the public comment period ends at the time indicated above or following the last call for comments, whichever is earlier. Each commenter will be provided up to five minutes for comment. A limited number of time slots are available and will be assigned on a first come-first served basis. Written comments will also be accepted from those unable to attend the public session via an on-line form at the following Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/contact.html.

    This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 33 people. The meeting is also open to the public via webcast. If you wish to attend in person or by webcast, please see the NIOSH Web site to register (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/) or call (404-498-2539) at least five business days in advance of the meeting. Teleconference is available toll-free; please dial (888) 397-9578, Participant Pass Code 63257516. Adobe Connect webcast will be available at https://odniosh.adobeconnect.com/nioshbsc/ for participants wanting to connect remotely.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 26, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m., EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Patriots Plaza I, 395 E Street SW., Room 9000, Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alberto Garcia, M.S., Executive Secretary, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS-R5, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 841-4596, fax (513) 841-4506.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The Secretary, the Assistant Secretary for Health, and by delegation the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are authorized under Sections 301 and 308 of the Public Health Service Act to conduct directly or by grants or contracts, research, experiments, and demonstrations relating to occupational safety and health and to mine health. The Board of Scientific Counselors provides guidance to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health on research and prevention programs. Specifically, the Board provides guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings and disseminating results. The Board evaluates the degree to which the activities of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: (1) Conform to appropriate scientific standards, (2) address current, relevant needs, and (3) produce intended results.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the meeting addresses occupational safety and health issues related to: Stockpiled surgical gowns & respirators; the increased use and complexity of robots; NIOSH's disaster science responder research; and fentanyl exposures to emergency responders.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    An agenda is also posted on the NIOSH Web site (http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/). Members of the public who wish to address the NIOSH BSC are requested to contact the Executive Secretary for scheduling purposes (see contact information below). Alternatively, written comments to the BSC may be submitted via an on-line form at the following Web site: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bsc/contact.html.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17128 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Meeting of Board of Scientific Counselors BSC National Center for Injury Prevention AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee. This meeting is open to the public. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number, 1-877-492-3517 and the passcode is 2576415. The phone line has 75 ports available for teleconference participants. The meeting room will only accommodate 50 people. There will be 15 minutes allotted on Wednesday, September 27, 2017 from 11:30 a.m.-11:45 a.m. for public comments. The public is welcome to submit written comment in advance of the meeting, to the contact person listed below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 26, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 4:40 p.m., EDT, and September 27, 2017, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Crown Plaza Atlanta Perimeter at Ravinia, 4355 Ashford Dunwoody Road NE., Atlanta, 30346 and via Teleconference: Dial-In Number: 1-877-492-3517, Participant Code: 2576415.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn H. Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H., Deputy Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-1430. Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose: The Board will: (1) Conduct, encourage, cooperate with, and assist other appropriate public health authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental diseases, and other impairments; (2) assist States and their political subdivisions in preventing and suppressing communicable and non-communicable diseases and other preventable conditions and in promoting health and well-being; and (3) conduct and assist in research and control activities related to injury.

    The Board of Scientific Counselors makes recommendations regarding policies, strategies, objectives, and priorities; and reviews progress toward injury prevention goals and provides evidence in injury prevention-related research and programs. The Board also provides advice on the appropriate balance of intramural and extramural research, the structure, progress and performance of intramural programs. The Board is designed to provide guidance on extramural scientific program matters, including the: (1) Review of extramural research concepts for funding opportunity announcements; (2) conduct of Secondary Peer Review of extramural research grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts applications received in response to the funding opportunity announcements as it relates to the Center's programmatic balance and mission; (3) submission of secondary review recommendations to the Center Director of applications to be considered for funding support; (4) review of research portfolios, and (5) review of program proposals.

    Matters To Be Considered: The Board of Scientific Counselors Agenda for the two-day meeting will be: September 26, 2017—Will discuss science matters to include research strategies needed to guide the Center's focus, as well as updates on the NCIPC extramural research program, the National Intimate and Sexual Violence Workgroup, and the Pediatric Mild-Traumatic Injury Workgroup. September 27, 2017—Will discuss science matters to include the Essentials for Childhood Workgroup Portfolio Review, the Suicide Strategic Plan, and Opioid Overdose CDC Coordination/Strategic Directions. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17129 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-17NS] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Assessing the Infrastructure for Public Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention Services—NEW—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Annually, there are nearly 20 million cases of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in the United States (US) causing an estimated $15.6 billion in direct medical costs. A significant percentage of reported cases of STDs are diagnosed in publicly funded clinics, such as STD clinics that are operated by state health departments (SHDs) and local health departments (LHDs). Additionally, state and local health departments also engage in other essential STD prevention activities such as partner services and disease surveillance. Therefore, it is important to periodically assess the current level of publicly-funded STD prevention services that are offered by health departments in the US.

    The STD infrastructure survey will aid CDC in understanding the scope of the delivery of timely public STD preventive and clinical services that are provided to reduce the number of newly acquired STDs and prevent STD-related sequelae. There is no national data available that focuses on detailed STD prevention activities conducted by state and local health departments.

    The purpose of this survey is to periodically, (i.e., every three years) examine STD prevention services provided by local and state health departments. The survey will include all state health departments and a nationally representative sample of local health departments in the US. The local health department sample will allow for estimates by jurisdiction population size and US Census region.

    The survey contains sections on STD program structure within the health department, STD-related clinical services (local health departments only), partner and other prevention services, and workforce and impacts of any budget reductions.

    CDC will administer the STD infrastructure survey to all 50 state health departments and a random sample of 668 local health departments from a list of local health departments maintained by the National Association of City and County Health Officials (NACCHO). Using a web-based survey, multiple reminders will be sent to non-responders in order to reach the target of 44 completed state and 334 completed local surveys for each data collection (different respondents per data collection). The total estimated annual burden hours are 238. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • STD program director, LHDs LHD survey 668 1 15/60 STD program director, SHDs SHD survey 50 1 85/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17025 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee. This meeting is open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701. The conference line has 150 ports for callers.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 28, 2017, 10:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1 (800) CDC-INFO, Email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines, which have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2016 pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will expire on September 30, 2017.

    Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

    Matters To Be Considered: The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: Dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 14-23, including the Oak Ridge sites (Y-12, K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Hanford, Feed Materials Production Center (“Fernald”), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Mound Plant, Rocky Flats Plant, Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Laboratory, Savannah River Site, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Westinghouse, W.R. Grace, Uranium Mill in Monticello, Ventron Corporation, Weldon Springs Plant, and other Department of Energy and “Atomic Weapons Employer” facilities. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17130 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families [CFDA Numbers: 93.581, 93.587, 93.612] Request for Public Comment on the Proposed Adoption of Administration for Native Americans Program Policies and Procedures AGENCY:

    Administration for Native Americans, ACF, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended, the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is required to provide members of the public an opportunity to comment on proposed changes in interpretive rules and general statements of policy and to give notice of the final adoption of such changes no less than 30 days before such changes become effective. In accordance with notice requirements of NAPA, ANA herein describes proposed interpretive rules and general statements of policy that relate to ANA's funding opportunities beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. Changes to FY 2018 Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) will be based on the following previously published programs: Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (ERE) HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NR-1221, Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance-Esther Martinez Immersion (EMI) HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NB-1226, Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance (P&M) HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NL-1235, Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NA-1236, Social and Economic Development Strategies-Alaska (SEDS-AK) HHS-2015-ACF-ANA-NK-0960, and Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (ILEAD) HHS-2017-ACF-ANA-NC-1263. This notice of public comment also provides additional information about ANA's plan for administering grant programs.

    DATES:

    The deadline for receipt of comments is 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register. No FOA will be published prior to 30 days from publication of this Notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments in response to this notice should be addressed to Carmelia Strickland, Director of Program Operations, Administration for Native Americans, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Delays may occur in mail delivery to federal offices; therefore, a copy of comments should be emailed to [email protected] Comments will be available for inspection by members of the public at the Administration for Native Americans, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carmelia Strickland, Director, Division of Program Operations, Administration for Native Americans (877) 922-9262.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 814 of NAPA, as amended, incorporates provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that require ANA to provide notice of its proposed interpretive rules and statements of policy and to seek public comment on such proposals. This notice serves to fulfill the statutory notice and public comment requirement. ANA has also chosen to provide notice of its proposed rules of agency practice and procedure. The proposed interpretive rules, statements of policy, and rules of ANA practice and procedure reflected in clarifications, modifications, and new text will appear in the six FY 2018 FOAs: Environmental Regulatory Enhancement (ERE), Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance-Esther Martinez Immersion (EMI), Native American Language Preservation and Maintenance (P&M), Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS), Social and Economic Development Strategies-Alaska (SEDS-AK), and Native Youth Initiative for Leadership, Empowerment, and Development (ILEAD). This notice also reflects ANA's elimination of the Sustainable Employment and Economic Strategies (SEEDS) FOA.

    For information on the types of projects funded by ANA, please refer to the following for information on current and previously funded ANA grants at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/grants.

    Pre-publication information on ANA's FOAs is available at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html by clicking on `Forecasted' under Opportunity Status and `Administration for Children and Families—ANA [HHS-ACF-ANA]' on the left side of the page. ANA's FOAs can be accessed at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/office/ana or http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/foa/. Synopses and application forms will be available on https://www.grants.gov/.

    A. Interpretive rules, statements of policy, procedures, and practice. The proposals below reflect ANA's proposed changes in rules, policy, or procedure which will take effect in the FY 2018 FOAs.

    1. Application periods. ANA proposes to provide an open application period of no less than 90 days to respond to FOAs. ANA is increasing the open application period to provide applicants with additional time to review proposed changes that are actualized in the FY 2018 FOAs, and to develop their applications according to FOA requirements. ANA intends to maintain the 90 day open application period for subsequent years.

    2. Two-File Upload Requirement. ANA proposes to include the grant application submission requirement established by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), which specifies “applicants submitting their applications electronically are required to upload only two electronic files. No more than two files will be accepted for the review and additional files will be removed. Standard Forms will not be considered as additional files.” ANA requested to deviate from this policy in order to provide rural communities and lower capacity organizations an opportunity to adjust to any technological, or bandwidth requirements that go along with transfer and upload of large files. The policy has now been in existence for several years for other ACF Programs, therefore ANA will no longer request a deviation from this standard ACF policy.

    3. Reduced project period for ILEAD. ANA proposes to maintain the reduced maximum project period for awards made under the ILEAD FOA from four years (four 12- month budget periods) to three years (three 12-month budget periods). The reduced project period was made in FY 2017 FOAs to align the program with ANA's Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) program, which is published under the same CFDA number as ILEAD.

    4. FY 2018 FOA—Project Description. ANA proposes to modify the information requested in the project description for FY 2018 application submissions. Modifications are being proposed to reflect a shift away from a deficit approach, towards a strength-based approach to defining projects and addressing long-term community goals, and to align the application request for information with common terminology related to program evaluation. The following is applicable to project description requests, and evaluation criterion for all ANA FOAs published beginning in FY 2018:

    (a) ANA will no longer require the “Problem Statement” or include the section titled “Objectives and Need for Assistance”. Instead, ANA proposes to focus on long term community goals, the community condition, and how the project outcomes relate to the community condition. Information will be requested under the Expected Outcomes section of the Project Description request.

    (b) To shift terms included in the FOA towards commonly used evaluation terminology, objectives will no longer be referred to as Specific, Measureable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART). ANA proposes to define objectives with population, targets, indicators, and timelines. In addition the terms “results” and “benefits” will be replaced with “outcomes” and “outputs.”

    (c) ANA proposes to require information that addresses elements of a “Project Framework”. The project framework will include the following elements: Long-term community goal, current community condition, outcomes; project goal, objectives, indicators, and outputs. The project framework includes elements previously requested in ANA FOAs, in combination with new elements, to fully identify the project in relation to overall community goals; identify project outcomes related to the enhancement of a current community condition; and establish a framework for monitoring changes and identifying tangible results from the project.

    (d) ANA will no longer require the identification of impact or an impact indicator; instead, ANA proposes the requirement of an outcome tracking strategy. The outcome tracking strategy will require applicants to identify an indicator and outcome for each objective; a means for measuring change to the indicator, which includes data points and establishes targets to be met throughout project implementation; and a list of project outputs related to each project objective. Within the FY 2018 FOAs, ANA intends to include a suggested format for organizing the information included in the outcome tracking strategy, similar to the suggestion included in the FY 2017 FOAs for organizing impact indicators.

    (e) To prioritize community based projects, ANA proposes to require information to identify a community-based strategy for project implementation. The requirement will include information to describe how the proposed project relates to community based priorities, how the community was involved in project development, and how the community will be involved in implementation and sustainability.

    (f) The ANA Objective Work Plan (OWP) [current OMB form 0970-0452] will be modified. The terms “results” and “benefits” will no longer be used; instead, applicants will be required to identify outcomes and outputs. Key project activities will be included separately from administrative activities. Requirements for key activities will include alignment to outputs that are created by project implementation and a maximum of 25 key activities per objective during each year of implementation.

    (a) To accommodate modifications to ANA's application information request, ANA proposes the following evaluation criteria headings and scoring values: Outcomes Expected (0-25 points), Outcome Tracking Strategy (0-10 points), Approach (0-25 points), Organizational Capacity (0-15 points), OWP (0-15 points), and Budget (0-10 points).

    (b) A scoring table will be included in all FOAs to provide additional guidance to panel reviewers regarding the allocation of points in relation to the quality of information provided in the application.

    5. ANA Administrative Policies. The following modifications are applicable to the ANA Administrative Policies included in all FY 2018 FOAs:

    (a) ANA proposes to add an administrative policy to prioritize the award of funds to applicant organizations that are local, community based organizations. In the case of national, regional, or non-local based organizations, ANA may provide support to organizations that have provided information to justify they are the appropriate applicant organization to administer the proposed project in support of the community and project beneficiaries being served. The policy is proposed as follows:

    Prioritized Funding for Local, Native American Community Based Organizations:

    ANA reserves the right to prioritize funding to local Native American community-based organizations serving their local communities and populations. Applications from national and regional organizations that propose projects that are performed in a different geographic location must clearly demonstrate how the target community was selected. They must also demonstrate a need for the project, explain how the project originated, discuss the community-based delivery strategy of the project, identify and describe the intended beneficiaries, describe and relate the actual project benefits to the community and organization, and describe a community-based delivery system. National and regional organizations must describe their membership, define how the organization operates and demonstrate Native community and/or Tribal government involvement in the development of the project and support for the project. The type of community to be served will determine the type of documentation necessary to support the project.

    This proposed administrative policy is based on the priority for self-sufficiency for Native American communities, and follows the premise that self-sufficiency is best obtained when local organizations are leading efforts to achieve community goals. The policy will state ANA's priority for community local, community based organizations, and describe information requirements for national, regional, or non-local based organizations.

    (b) Limitation on Number of Awards Based on Two Consecutively Funded Projects: ANA proposes to edit language for this policy to clarify that a no cost extension (NCE) will be included as a period of project implementation, towards consecutively funded projects. The policy is proposed as follows:

    Limitation on Number of Awards Based on Two Consecutively Funded Projects:

    ANA will maximize the reach of its limited funding. Therefore, applicants that have implemented at least two consecutive projects within one CFDA number may not be funded for a third consecutive project within the same CFDA number if other applicants who have not received ANA funding in the past 3 years are within the scoring range to be funded. Project implementation periods are comprised of newly awarded first year project periods, Non Competing Continuation (NCC) periods, and any No Cost Extensions (NCE) periods.

    Therefore grantees that have been approved for a NCE must complete a year after the end of the NCE period without implementing an ANA project under the same CFDA number before they are considered to be exempt from this policy. This specific issue has raised several questions during the implementation period for ANA projects. Editing the policy is meant to clarify its application prior to the start of an award.

    6. Ineligible Activities. ANA proposes to revise language describing ineligible third party training and technical assistance, which is included in the list of Projects Ineligible for Funding in all FY 2018 FOAs. The revision will remove the statement that describes third party training and technical assistance as activities that duplicate training and technical assistance provided by ANA T/TA providers, and the language will directly align the ineligible activity with language in Subchapter D—The Administration for Native Americans, Native American programs, 45 CFR 1336.33(b).

    Ineligible Third Party Training and Technical Assistance activities will be stated in the FOAs as follows:

    Projects for which a grantee will provide training and technical assistance to other tribes or Native American organizations or to non-members of the grantee organization (third party training or technical assistance).

    7. Disqualification Factors. ANA proposes the following edits to the ANA Disqualification Factors included in all FY 2018 FOAs:

    (a) ANA will include language to clarify that Tribal Colleges and public agencies serving native peoples from Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, are required to submit Assurance of Community Representation and Governing Body Documentation from the governing body of the Tribal College. Documentation from the governing body of the Tribe will not fulfill the requirements for this documentation. This clarification is proposed to reduce the number of applications that are disqualified due to misunderstanding the requirements.

    (b) ANA will revise the categories for community representation, as described under the Assurance of Community Representation on Board of Directors. ANA proposes to remove the second category of affiliation/relationship to the community being served. This category was listed as: “persons eligible to be a participant in, or beneficiary of the project.” The Assurance of Community Representation is included to ensure ANA funds are awarded to organizations that directly represent the Native American community that will be served (See 45 CFR 1336.33). However, ANA does not limit project participants or beneficiaries to individuals that represent the community being served. Therefore ANA has determined that the inclusion of this category does not support the intention of this policy.

    The revised policy is proposed as follows:

    Assurance of Community Representation on Board of Directors

    Applicants other than tribes or Alaska Native Villages applying for funding must show that a majority of board members are representative of a Native American community to be served. Applicants must submit documentation that identifies each board member by name and indicates his/her affiliation or relationship to at least one of ANA's three categories of community representation, which include: (1) Members of federally or state-recognized tribes; (2) persons who are recognized by members of the eligible Native American community to be served as having a cultural relationship with that community; or (3) persons considered to be Native American as defined in 45 CFR 1336.10 and Native American Pacific Islanders as defined in Section 815 of the Native American Programs Act. Applicants that do not include this documentation will be considered non-responsive, and the application will not be considered for competition. See Section IV.2. Project Description, Additional Eligibility Documentation.

    Public agencies serving native peoples from Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Tribal Colleges governed by a board that is separate from the governing body of a tribe, must include Assurance of Community Representation from the governing body of the Tribal College, and not from the governing body of the Tribe. If the documentation is not included by the submission deadline, the application will be considered unresponsive and will be disqualified from the competition.

    8. Review and Selection Process. ANA will modify the implementation of the Review and Selection process, as stated in all FY 2018 FOAs as follows:

    (a) ANA's commissioner has the discretion to make all final funding decisions. In exercising this discretion, the commissioner includes a list in Section V.2. Review and Selection Process of projects that may not be chosen for funding. For the FY 2018 FOAs, ANA proposes the following:

    Additions:

    • Projects that have not demonstrated a community-based strategy as described in Section I. Program Description, Key Project Features.

    • Projects proposed by national, regional, and non-local organization that have not justified their position as the best applicant organization to address long term community goals for a local community. Please see Section I. Administrative Policies, Prioritized Funding for Local, Native American Community Based Organizations.

    • Projects proposing activities that were previously implemented without Federal Assistance.

    Because ANA funding is limited, ANA proposes adding these items to the list in order to align with new language emphasizing community-based strategies, and to highlight the priority for funding these projects. ANA also wants to ensure that its limited funding is being used for projects that are not able to secure other sources of funding for activities that were being previously implemented without support from the Federal Government.

    Deletion:

    • Projects that provide couples or family counseling activities that are medically-based.

    ANA has stated in other administrative policies that it will not fund human research, or projects that may cause unintended harm to project participants. Outside of these limitations, and in an effort to support the Native American community's ability to determine if these activities are actually beneficially to achievement of their long-term goals, ANA will no longer limit the proposal of projects that include medically-based couples or family counseling activities.

    9. Native American Preservation and Maintenance Program. The following modifications are being proposed to the “Native American Languages Preservation and Maintenance,” and “Native American Languages Preservation and Maintenance Esther Martinez Immersion” FOAs only:

    (a) ANA proposes the identification of language specific outcomes that relate to one of the following categories: Language fluency, increased community member use of language learning resources; certified language teachers; or increased capacity to implement a language program. The categories are being proposed in order to further define the outcomes for ANA language projects, and to support the monitoring and evaluation of ANA's language and preservation program.

    (b) ANA will include language in the FY 2018 FOAs to restate application requirements included in Section 803C(c)(5-6) of the Native American Programs Act (NAPA) of 1974. The requirements are as follows:

    (5) if appropriate, an identification of opportunities for the replication of such project or the modification of such project for use by other Native Americans; and

    (6) a plan for the preservation of the products of the Native American language project for the benefit of future generations of Native Americans and other interested persons”

    This language will be added directly as stated in ANA's authorizing legislation to ensure that applications meet the requirements of NAPA.

    Statutory Authority:

    Section 814 of the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (NAPA), as amended.

    Kimberly Romaine, Deputy Commissioner, Administration for Native Americans.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17099 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) Post-Expenditure Report.

    OMB No.: 0970-0234.

    Description: The purpose of this is to request approval to: (1) Reinstate and extend the collection of post-expenditure data using the current OMB approved Post-Expenditure Reporting form (OMB No. 0970-0234) with modification past the current expiration date of November 30, 2017; (2) propose 8 minor additions to the current Post-Expenditure Reporting form; and (3) to request that grantees continue to voluntarily submit estimated pre-expenditure data using the Post-Expenditure Reporting form, as part of the required annual Intended Use Plan.

    The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) is authorized under Title XX of the Social Security Act, as amended, and is codified at 42 U.S.C § 1397 through § 1397e. SSBG provides funds to States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (hereinafter referred to as States and Territories or grantees) to assist in delivering critical services to vulnerable older adults, persons with disabilities, at-risk adolescents and young adults, and children and families. SSBG funds are distributed to each State and the District of Columbia based on each State's population relative to all other States. Distributions are made to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands based on the same ratio allotted to them in 1981 as compared to the total 1981 appropriation.

    Each State or Territory is responsible for designing and implementing its own use of SSBG funds to meet the specialized needs of their most vulnerable populations. States and Territories may determine what services will be provided, who will be eligible, and how funds will be distributed among the various services. State or local SSBG agencies (i.e., county, city, regional offices) may provide the services or grantees may purchase services from qualified agencies, organizations, or individuals. States and Territories must administer the SSBG according to their accepted Intended Use Plan, along with amendments, and in conformance with their own implementing rules and policies. The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families administers the SSBG.

    Annually, grantees are required to submit a Pre-Expenditure Report and Intended Use Plan as a prerequisite to receiving SSBG funds. The Pre-Expenditure Report must include information on the types of services to be supported and the characteristics of individuals to be served. This report is to be submitted 30 days prior to the start of the Fiscal Year (June 1 if the State operates on a July-June Fiscal Year, or September 1 if the State operates on a Federal Fiscal Year). No specific format is required for the Intended Use Plan. Grantees are required to submit a revised Intended Use Plan and Pre-Expenditure Report if the planned use of SSBG funds changes during the year (42 U.S.C. 1397c).

    In order to provide a more accurate analysis of the extent to which funds are spent “in a manner consistent” with each of the grantees' plan for their use, as required by 42 U.S.C. 1397e (a), OCS continues to request that States voluntarily use the format of the Post-Expenditure Reporting form to create their Pre-Expenditure Report, which provides estimates of the amount of expenditures and the number of recipients, by service category, and is submitted as part of the grantees' Intended Use Plan. Most of the States and Territories are currently using the format of the Post-Expenditure Reporting form to report estimated expenditures and recipients (the Pre-Expenditure Report), by service category, as part of their Intended Use Plan.

    On an annual basis, States and Territories are also required to submit a Post-Expenditure Report that details their use of SSBG funds in each of 29 service categories. Grantees are required to submit their Post-Expenditure Report within six months of the end of the period covered by the report. The Post-Expenditure Report must address (1) The number of individuals (including number of children and number of adults) who receive services paid for, in whole or in part, with Federal funds under the SSBG; (2) The amount of SSBG funds spent in providing each service; (3) The total amount of Federal, State, and Local funds spent in providing each service, including SSBG funds; (4) The method(s) by which each service is provided, showing separately the services provided by public and private agencies; and (5) the criteria applied in determining eligibility for each service such as income eligibility guidelines, sliding scale fees, the effect of public assistance benefits, and any requirements for enrollment in school or training programs (45 CFR 96.74a). The Post-Expenditure Report must also; (1) indicate if recipient totals are actual or if the total reported is based on estimates and/or sampled data; and (2) use its own definition of child and adult in reporting the required data (45 CFR 96.74b).

    This request seeks approval to reinstate and continue the use of the current OMB approved Post-Expenditure Reporting form (OMB No. 0970-0234) with modification, for estimating expenditures and recipients as part of States'/Territories' Pre-Expenditure Reports and for annual Post-Expenditure Reporting. The proposed modifications seek to consolidate information that would be stored or transmitted elsewhere into the singular reporting form to allow OCS to better analyze and provide guidance to improve States efficiency in grant administration. These modifications address the regulations 42 U.S.C. 1397e and 45 CFR 96.74 cited above by providing space on the Post-Expenditure form to indicate the required information.

    Beginning in 2013, States completed the current reporting form on the SSBG Portal. The SSBG Portal is a secure web-based data portal. The SSBG Portal allows for more efficient data submission without increasing the overall burden on States. Until recently, Territories reported the data on the Post-Expenditure Reporting form in Microsoft Excel and submitted it to ACF, via email or posted mail. In 2017, Territories can complete the current reporting form on the SSBG Portal. The SSBG Portal provides a user-friendly means for States and Territories to submit and access their Pre-Expenditure and Post-Expenditure and Recipient Data.

    Information collected in the Post-Expenditure Reports submitted by States and Territories is analyzed and described in an annual report on SSBG expenditures and recipients produced by the Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The information contained in this report is used for grant planning and management. The data establishes how SSBG funding is used for the provision of services in each State or Territory.

    The data is also analyzed to determine the performance of States and Territories in meeting the SSBG performance measures developed to meet the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as amended by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 [Pub. L. 11-352; 31 U.S.C 1115(b)(10)]. GPRA requires all Federal agencies to develop measurable performance goals.

    The SSBG currently has an administrative costs efficiency measure which is intended to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as administrative costs in the Post-Expenditure Reports [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2007, June). Implementing a new performance measure to enhance efficiency (Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 04-2007). Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/implementing-a-new-performance-measure-to-enhance-efficiency]. The SSBG also implements a performance measure designed to ensure that SSBG funds are spent effectively and efficiently while maintaining the intrinsic flexibility of the SSBG as a block grant. The performance measure assesses the degree to which States and Territories spend SSBG funds in a manner consistent with their intended use, as required by Federal law [42 U.S.C. 1397e(a); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2012, February). Implementation of a new performance measure (Information Memorandum Transmittal No. 01-2012). Available from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ocs/resource/implementation-of-a-new-performance-measure]. It will be used to determine how well grantees are doing overall in minimizing variance between projected and actual expenditures of SSBG funds. This program measure began implementation with FY 2013 data and remains ongoing.

    Respondents: The Post-Expenditure Reporting form and Pre-Expenditure Report are completed once annually by a representative of the agency that administers the Social Services Block Grant at the State or Territory level. Respondents include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, as well as the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Post-Expenditure Reporting Form 56 1 110 6,160 Use of Post-Expenditure Reporting Form as Part of the Intended Use Plan 56 1 2 112

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6,272.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17098 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4515] International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil, Carfentanil, Pregabalin, Tramadol, Cannabidiol, Ketamine, and Eleven Other Substances; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting interested persons to submit comments concerning abuse potential, actual abuse, medical usefulness, trafficking, and impact of scheduling changes on availability for medical use of 17 drug substances. These comments will be considered in preparing a response from the United States to the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the abuse liability and diversion of these drugs. WHO will use this information to consider whether to recommend that certain international restrictions be placed on these drugs. This notice requesting comments is required by the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA).

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments by September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of September 13, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for Written/Paper Submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2017-N-4515 for “International Drug Scheduling; Convention on Psychotropic Substances; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs; Ocfentanil; Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F); Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl); Carfentanil; 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl (4-FIBF); Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F); 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA); AB-PINACA; AB-CHMINACA; 5F-PB-22; UR-144; 5F-ADB; Etizolam; Pregabalin; Tramadol; Cannabidiol; Ketamine; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James R. Hunter, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Controlled Substance Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5150, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3156, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The United States is a party to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (Psychotropic Convention). Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention provides that if a party to the convention or WHO has information about a substance, which in its opinion may require international control or change in such control, it shall so notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations (the U.N. Secretary-General) and provide the U.N. Secretary-General with information in support of its opinion.

    Section 201 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 811) (Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) provides that when WHO notifies the United States under Article 2 of the Psychotropic Convention that it has information that may justify adding a drug or other substances to one of the schedules of the Psychotropic Convention, transferring a drug or substance from one schedule to another, or deleting it from the schedules, the Secretary of State must transmit the notice to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary of HHS). The Secretary of HHS must then publish the notice in the Federal Register and provide opportunity for interested persons to submit comments that will be considered by HHS in its preparation of the scientific and medical evaluations of the drug or substance.

    II. WHO Notification

    The Secretary of HHS received the following notice from WHO (non-relevant text removed):

    Ref.: C.L.xx.2017

    The World Health Organization (WHO) presents its compliments to Member States and Associate Members and has the pleasure of informing that the Thirty-ninth Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD) will meet in Geneva from 6 to 10 November 2017 to review a number of substances with potential for dependence, abuse and harm to health, and will make recommendations to the U.N. Secretary-General, on the need for and level of international control of these substances.

    At its 126th session in January 2010, the Executive Board approved the publication “Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control” (EB126/2010/REC1, Annex 6) which requires the Secretariat to request relevant information from Ministers of Health in Member States to prepare a report for submission to the ECDD. For this purpose, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on the legitimate use, harmful use, status of national control and potential impact of international control for each substance under evaluation. Member States are invited to collaborate, as in the past, in this process by providing pertinent information as requested in the questionnaire and concerning substances under review.

    It would be appreciated if a person from the Ministry of Health could be designated as the focal point responsible for coordinating and answering the questionnaire. (non relevant information from letter not shown, see letter for text not shown here) The designated focal point, and only this person, should access and complete the questionnaires:

    1. Ocfentanil 2. Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F) 3. Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl) 4. Carfentanil 5. 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl (4-FIBF) 6. Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F) 7. 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) 8. AB-PINACA 9. AB-CHMINACA 10. 5F-PB-22 11. UR-144 12. 5F-ADB 13. Etizolam 14. Pregabalin 15. Tramadol 16. Cannabidiol 17. Ketamine

    PDF versions of the questionnaire in English, French and Spanish may be downloaded from the link http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/. Please note that these versions are for reference only and all questionnaires must be answered through the online system. Further clarification regarding the questionnaire may be obtained from the Secretariat by emailing: [email protected]

    Replies to the questionnaire must reach the Secretariat by 30 September 2017 in order to facilitate analyses and preparation of the report before the planned meeting. Where there is a competent National Authority under the International Drug Control Treaties, it is kindly requested that the questionnaire be completed in collaboration with such body.

    The summary information from the questionnaire will be published online as part of the report on the Web site for the Thirty-ninth ECDD linked to the Department of Essential Medicines and Health Products (EMP). The provisional agenda of the Thirty-ninth ECDD and the list of psychoactive substances under review are also published on Thirty-ninth ECDD Web page: http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/ecdd/en/.

    Member States are also encouraged to provide any additional relevant information (unpublished or published) that is available on these substances to: [email protected] This information will be an invaluable contribution to the ECDD and all submissions will be treated as confidential.

    The World Health Organization takes this opportunity to renew to Member States and Associate Members the assurance of its highest consideration.

    GENEVA, 7 July 2017

    FDA has verified the Web site addresses contained in the WHO notice, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    III. Substances Under WHO Review

    Ocfentanil is a synthetically produced opioid that is structurally related to fentanyl and approximately equipotent in effect. Reported risks associated with use of ocfentanil include development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. It has no approved medical use in the United States and is not a controlled substance in the United States under the CSA.

    Furanyl fentanyl (Fu-F) is a potent clandestinely produced synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. Evidence suggests that the pattern of abuse of fentanyl analogues, including furanyl fentanyl, parallels that of heroin and prescription opioid analgesics. Fu-F produces the typical opioid effects that include respiratory depression and loss of consciousness. Seizures of Fu-F have been encountered in powder form. Fu-F has been connected to fatal overdoses, in which intravenous routes of administration are documented. It has no approved medical use in the United States. On November 29, 2016, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued a final order to temporarily schedule Fu-F and its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

    Acryloylfentanyl (Acrylfentanyl) belongs to the 4-anilidopiperidine class of synthetic opioids and is similar in structure to fentanyl. Acryloylfentanyl is a clandestinely produced analog of fentanyl and sold illegally as a research chemical on several Web sites. Acryloylfentanyl has also been associated with adverse events typically associated with opioid use such as respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, and withdrawal. The use of acryloylfentanyl has also been linked to the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. Acryloylfentanyl has no commercial or medical uses. On July 14, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary order to temporarily schedule acryloylfentanyl, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

    Carfentanil, also known as 4-carbomethoxyfentanyl, is an extremely potent synthetic opioid that is similar in structure to and approximately 100 times more potent than fentanyl as an analgesic. At one time legitimately produced, carfentanil is no longer manufactured, marketed, or used in the United States; it is approved by FDA for use under restricted conditions by veterinarians as a immobilizing agent for certain large animals. Illicitly produced carfentanil is a particularly harmful fentanyl analogue that is also being laced into heroin or sold by itself and trafficked in the United States. It is not approved for human use. Drug seizure data indicate that carfentanil is typically used in small doses to cut heroin and other illicitly abused drugs. The significant risk to public health associated with carfentanil use stems from its respiratory depressive effects with very small amounts. Several fatalities have been reported as the result of carfentanil overdoses. On October 28, 1988, the DEA placed carfentanil in Schedule II of the CSA.

    4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl is a clandestinely produced synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. It has µ-receptor agonist activity similar to that of fentanyl. This would result in effects associated with opioid agonists such as analgesia, respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, withdrawal, the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. The use of 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl has been implicated in several cases of overdose and fatal overdoses. 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl has not been approved for medical use in the U.S. On May 3, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary order to temporarily schedule 4-fluoroisobutyrfentanyl, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

    Tetrahydrofuranylfentanyl (THF-F) is a synthetic opioid that is an analog of fentanyl. It has µ-receptor agonist activity similar to that of fentanyl, resulting in effects associated with opioid agonists such as analgesia, respiratory depression, anxiety, constipation, tiredness, hallucinations, withdrawal, the development of opioid use disorder, overdose, and fatal overdose. THF-F is not approved for medical use or controlled in the United States under the CSA.

    4-Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) is a psychoactive substance of the phenethylamine and substituted amphetamine chemical classes and produces stimulant effects. WHO reports that 4-FA is clandestinely produced, and its use is associated with fatal and non-fatal intoxications. 4-FA was reviewed at the 37th ECDD (2015) and, while not placed under international control due to insufficient data, was kept under surveillance. 4-FA is not approved for medical use in the United States and it is not controlled under the CSA.

    AB-PINACA is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist approximately 1.5 times as potent as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. AB-PINACA has been detected in illicit synthetic cannabinoid substances, and reported in cases of overdose and hospitalizations. It has not been approved for medical use in the United States. On January 27, 2017, the DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permanently control AB-PINACA as a Schedule I substance under the CSA.

    AB-CHMINACA is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist that is approximately 16 times more potent than delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. AB-CHMINACA has been detected in illicit synthetic cannabinoid substances and found in cases of overdose and hospitalizations. AB-CHMINACA has not been pre-reviewed or critically reviewed by the WHO. On January 27, 2017, the DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to permanently control AB-CHMINACA as a Schedule I substance under the CSA.

    5F-PB-22 is a synthetic cannabinoid agonist with similar effects to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, one of the main psychoactive components of cannabis. Adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, acute psychosis, and death. 5F-PB-22 is clandestinely produced. It has been found laced on plant material and marketed as herbal products, and is smoked for its psychoactive effects. According to the WHO, 5F-PB-22 has been associated with fatal intoxications. On September 6, 2016, the DEA issued a final rule to permanently place 5F-PB-22 into Schedule I of the CSA.

    UR-144 is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist. In general, adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, and acute psychosis. UR-144 has been detected in herbal smoking blends that are sold as herbal incense. In June 2014, the 36th (2014) ECDD reviewed UR-144 and recommended that it be placed under surveillance. On May 11, 2016, the DEA issued a final rule to permanently schedule UR-144 into Schedule I of the CSA.

    5F-ADB is a clandestinely produced synthetic cannabinoid agonist. In general, adverse effects produced by cannabinoid agonists include tachycardia, agitation, hallucination, chest pain, seizure, anxiety, and acute psychosis. 5F-ADB has been identified in overdose and/or cases involving death attributed to their abuse. Adverse health effects reported from incidents involving 5F-ADB and other synthetic cannabinoids have included: Nausea, persistent vomiting, agitation, altered mental status, seizures, convulsions, loss of consciousness, and/or cardio toxicity. On April 10, 2017, the DEA issued a temporary scheduling order to temporarily schedule 5F-ADB, its isomers, esters, ethers, salts and salts of isomers, esters, and ethers into Schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the CSA.

    Etizolam belongs to a class of substances known as benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines produce central nervous system depression and are commonly used to treat insomnia, anxiety, and seizure disorders. Etizolam is currently prescribed in some countries to treat generalized anxiety disorder with depressive symptoms, but is not approved for medical use or controlled in the United States under the CSA. WHO reported that non-fatal intoxications that include cases of driving under the influence of drugs have been linked to etizolam. The ECDD at its 37th (2015 meeting reviewed etizolam and recommended that a critical review of etizolam is warranted.

    Pregabalin is an anticonvulsant-type drug used to treat pain generated from the nervous system. It is available as an oral capsule and oral solution and approved for medical use in the United States for the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, and adjunctive therapy for partial onset seizures, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury. Although the mechanism of action of pregabalin is unknown, studies in animals suggest that binding to the nervous system tissues may be involved in its pain-relieving and anti-seizure effects. Pregabalin binds with high affinity to the alpha 2-delta receptor site (a subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels) in the central nervous system. The binding of pregabalin at this site is thought to be responsible for its therapeutic effect on neuropathic pain. Reports indicate that patients are self-administering higher than recommended doses to achieve euphoria, especially patients who have a history of substance abuse, particularly opioids, and psychiatric illness. While effects of excessively high doses are generally non-lethal, gabapentinoids such as pregabalin are increasingly being identified in post-mortem toxicology analyses. Pregabalin is a Schedule V controlled substance in the United States under the CSA.

    Tramadol is an opioid analgesic that produces its primary opioid-like action through an active metabolite referred to as the M1 metabolite (O-desmethyltramadol). Tramadol was first approved for marketing in the United States in 1995 and is available as immediate-release, extended-release, and combination products for the treatment of moderate to moderately severe pain. On July 2, 2014, the DEA published a final rule in the Federal Register controlling tramadol as a Schedule IV substance of the CSA effective from August 18, 2014. Tramadol was pre-reviewed by the ECDD at its 28th (1992) and 32nd (2000) meetings, and critically reviewed at the 33rd (2002) meeting and not recommended for international control but placed on surveillance. Tramadol was pre-reviewed again by the ECDD at its 34th (2006) meeting; however, the ECDD concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a critical review. At the 36th (2014) meeting, the ECDD considered updated information on tramadol, but again concluded that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a critical review.

    Cannabidiol (CBD) is one of the active cannabinoids identified in cannabis. CBD has been shown to be beneficial in experimental models of several neurological disorders, including those of seizure and epilepsy. In the United States, CBD-containing products are in human clinical testing in three therapeutic areas, but no such products are approved by FDA for marketing for medical purposes in the United States. CBD is a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA. At the 37th (2015) meeting of the ECDD, the committee requested that the Secretariat prepare relevant documentation to conduct pre-reviews for several substances, including CBD.

    Ketamine is classified as a rapid-acting general anesthetic agent used for short diagnostic and surgical procedures that do not require skeletal muscle relaxation. It is marketed in the United States as a solution for injection. Ketamine is controlled in Schedule III of the CSA in the United States. It is not controlled internationally under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances or the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The ECDD reviewed ketamine at its 34th (2006), 35th (2012), and 36th (2014) meetings. On March 13, 2015, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) decided by consensus to postpone the consideration of a proposal concerning the recommendation to place ketamine in Schedule IV of the Psychotropic Convention. The CND requested additional information from the WHO. The ECDD reviewed updated information at its 37th (2015) meeting and found no reason to recommend a new pre-review or critical review of ketamine that could potentially change its standing 2014 recommendation that ketamine should not be placed under international control.

    IV. Opportunity To Submit Domestic Information

    As required by section 201(d)(2)(A) of the CSA, FDA, on behalf of HHS, invites interested persons to submit comments regarding the 17 named drug substances. Any comments received will be considered by HHS when it prepares a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances. HHS will forward a scientific and medical evaluation of these drug substances to WHO, through the Secretary of State, for WHO's consideration in deciding whether to recommend international control/decontrol of any of these drug substances. Such control could limit, among other things, the manufacture and distribution (import/export) of these drug substances and could impose certain recordkeeping requirements on them.

    Although FDA is, through this notice, requesting comments from interested persons, which will be considered by HHS when it prepares an evaluation of these drug substances, HHS will not now make any recommendations to WHO regarding whether any of these drugs should be subjected to international controls. Instead, HHS will defer such consideration until WHO has made official recommendations to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which are expected to be made in early 2018. Any HHS position regarding international control of these drug substances will be preceded by another Federal Register notice soliciting public comments, as required by section 201(d)(2)(B) of the CSA.

    V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17119 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Division of Behavioral Health; Office of Clinical and Preventive Services; Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (BH2I)

    Announcement Type: New.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2017-IHS-BH2I-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: September 16, 2017.

    Review Date: September 18, 2017.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2017.

    Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: September 16, 2017.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: September 16, 2017.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Clinical and Preventative Services, Division of Behavioral Health, is accepting applications for its Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (Short Title: BH2I) to plan, develop, implement, and evaluate behavioral health integration with primary care, community based settings, and/or integrating primary care, nutrition, diabetes care, and chronic disease management with behavioral health. This program is authorized under: The Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13, and 25 U.S.C. 1665j. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.933.

    Background

    IHS supports changing the paradigm of mental health and substance use disorder services from being episodic, fragmented, specialty, and/or disease focused to incorporating it into the patient-centered home model. Research has shown that more than 70 percent of primary care visits stem from behavioral health issues. Depression is the most common type of mental illness, currently affecting more than a quarter of the U.S. adult population. With major depression currently the second leading cause of disability, it is clear that primary care settings have become an important access point for addressing both physical and behavioral health care needs. In addition, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities experience alarming rates of suicide, alcohol and drug-related deaths, domestic and sexual violence, and homicide. Describing the burden of trauma within any population is difficult, however indicators in terms of socially destructive behaviors are often used to illustrate this public health issue that creates impact through lifespan accumulation and chronic stress. Studies now indicate that resulting trauma from such events can even be passed from one generation to the next, resulting in intergenerational and historical trauma. While mental health needs can often go untreated and even unnoticed, the lasting effects of childhood trauma into adulthood is often evident in physical manifestations leading to negative health consequences. These extreme disparities highlight an urgent need for improving access to mental health services in primary care for children and families through the integration of behavioral health services, including trauma-informed care, within primary care settings. In addition, recognizing that behavioral and physical health problems are interwoven, delivery of behavioral health services in primary care settings reduces stigma and discrimination, and the majority of people with behavioral health disorders treated within an integrated primary care setting have improved outcomes.

    Purpose

    The purpose of the Behavioral Health Integration Initiative (BH2I) grant opportunity is to improve the physical and mental health status of people with behavioral health issues by developing an integrative, coordinated system of care between behavioral health and primary care providers. This effort supports the IHS mission to raise the physical, mental, social and spiritual health of AI/ANs to the highest level. Increasing capacity among IHS, Tribal, and Urban Indian Organization (I/T/U) health facilities to implement an integrative approach in the delivery of behavioral health services, including trauma-informed care, nutrition, exercise, social, spiritual, cultural, and primary care services will improve morbidity and mortality outcomes among the AI/AN population. In addition, this effort will support activities that address improving the quality of life for individuals suffering from mental illness, substance use disorders, and adverse childhood experiences. Other outcomes related to this effort include improved behavioral health services that will increase access to integrated health and social well-being services and the early identification and intervention of mental health, substance use, and serious physical health issues, including chronic disease. This work will also identify and assess various models addressing unique integrative needs and the challenges, barriers and successes in AI/AN health systems. Finally, an improvement in the overall health of patients participating in integrative programs is expected.

    For this grant, the full spectrum of behavioral health services are strongly encouraged and are defined as: Screening for mental and substance use disorders, including serious mental illness; alcohol, substance, and opioid use disorders; suicidality and trauma (e.g., interpersonal violence, physical abuse, adverse childhood experiences) assessment, including risk assessment and diagnosis; patient-centered treatment planning, evidence based outpatient mental and substance use disorder treatment services (including pharmacological and psychosocial services); crisis services; peer support services; and care coordination.

    Models of Care

    IHS understands unique challenges and circumstances exist across Tribal communities and sites. In fact, integrative models of care vary according to needs and capabilities but all strive to enhance clinical processes and workflow across multi-disciplinary teams. This grant will support sites that have identified gaps in services and established efforts that moved toward linking those critical connections, including those with new and innovative ways of conducting business between differing management of operations between Federal and Tribal health services.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Grant.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017 is approximately $6,000,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be $500,000. The amount of funding available for competing awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the agency. IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately 12 awards will be issued under this notice of funding opportunity announcement.

    Project Period

    The project period will be for three years and will run consecutively from September 30, 2017, to September 29, 2020.

    III. Eligibility Information I. 1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this New Funding Opportunity under this announcement, an applicant must be one of the following as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603:

    • A Federally recognized Indian Tribe as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(14);

    • A Tribal organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(26);

    • An Urban Indian organization as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29); a nonprofit corporate body situated in an urban center, governed by an Urban Indian controlled board of directors, and providing for the maximum participation of all interested Indian groups and individuals, which body is capable of legally cooperating with other public and private entities for the purpose of performing the activities described in 25 U.S.C. 1653(a). Applicants must provide proof of non-profit status with the application, e.g., 501(c)(3).

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceeds the award amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    Tribal Resolution

    An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include Tribal resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.

    An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award (NoA) being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a Notice of Award will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the Grants Management Specialist listed in this Funding Announcement.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e., FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 12 pages).

    ○ Statement of need, program planning and implementation approach, staff and organizational capacity, performance assessment and data, and evaluation plan.

    • Budget, Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed four pages).

    • Tribal Resolution(s).

    • Letter(s) of Support:

    ○ For all applicants: Local organizational partners;

    ○ For all applicants: Community partners;

    ○ For Tribal organizations and UIOs: From the board of directors (or relevant equivalent);

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel (e.g., project coordinator etc.).

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: https://harvester.census.gov/facdissem/Main.aspx.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives A. Project Narrative (12 pages)

    The project narrative (Parts A through E listed below) should be in a separate Word document that should not exceed 12 pages and must: Be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address all items listed under the evaluation criteria section (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible grant award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 12 pages will be reviewed. The 12-page limit for the narrative does not include the table of contents, abstract, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, budget, budget justification narrative, and/or other appendix items.

    There are five (5) parts to the project narrative:

    Part A—Statement of Need;

    Part B—Program Planning and Implementation Approach;

    Part C—Staff and Organization Capacity;

    Part D—Performance Assessment and Data; and

    Part E—Evaluation Plan.

    Below are additional details about what must be included in the project narrative.

    Part A: Statement of Need (2 pages)

    The statement of need describes the current situation in the applicant's Tribal community (“community” means the applicant's Tribe, village, Tribal organization, or consortium of Tribes or Tribal organizations). The statement of need provides the facts and evidence that support the need for the project and establishes that the Tribe, Tribal organization, or UIO understands the problems and can reasonably address them. The statement of need must not exceed two single-spaced pages.

    • Describe the community and priority population for your program including the patients or participants that you expect to serve and the reasons integrated behavioral health and primary care services are needed.

    • Describe current behavioral health and/or primary care services in place along with challenges and gaps to provide integrated behavioral health/primary care services to individuals.

    • Explain how the BH2I can improve or enhance the current systems in place.

    Part B: Program Planning and Implementation Approach (5 pages)

    • State the purpose, goals and objectives of your proposed project.

    • Describe evidence-based programs, services or practices proposed for implementation, or will continue implementation through support of this grant opportunity.

    • Describe your current level of behavioral health integration (using the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions six-level framework (http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/integrated-care-models/A_Standard_Framework_for_Levels_of_Integrated_Healthcare.pdf) and forecast how you will progress to higher levels of health integration.

    • Describe your plan to formally integrate behavioral health through:

    ○ Improving workflow in the assessment of behavioral health in primary care such as screenings, referral, and policy development.

    ○ Health information technology changes or improvements that facilitate behavioral health integration

    ○ Improving physical environment barriers in the delivery of integrated health care

    ○ Cross training staff, including psycho-education training for staff within primary care settings and basic medical education for behavioral health staff.

    ○ Establishing formal and informal channels of communication that facilitates behavioral health integration.

    ○ Describe how you will identify those individuals during the screening process who may indicate opioid and/or alcohol use disorders and how you will refer them to Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)-qualified specialty treatment providers.

    Part C: Staff and Organization Capacity (2 pages)

    This section should describe applicant agency organization and structure and the capabilities possessed to complete proposed activities. This grant opportunity will focus on applicants and the applicant's ability to implement a formalized integration plan focused on the enhancing the clinical processes for patient care among the IHS service areas.

    • Identify qualified professionals who will implement proposed grant activities, administer the grant, including progress and financial reports or provide salary costs for the addition of full-time equivalent (FTE) licensed behavioral health provider(s).

    • Describe the organization's current system of providing at least one service of primary care and/or behavioral health, including screening, assessment, and care management. The primary applicant must directly deliver, operate, and/or manage at least one portion of direct primary care or behavioral health treatment services.

    • Describe the organization's plan to hire full-time equivalent (FTE) licensed behavioral health provider(s).

    Part D: Performance Assessment and Data (2 pages)

    This section of the application should describe efforts to collect and report project data that will support and demonstrate BH2I activities. BH2I grantees will be required to collect and report data pertaining to activities, processes and outcomes. Data collection activities should capture and document actions conducted throughout awarded years including those that will contribute relevant project impact.

    • Describe specific data collection efforts that will be required as part of the EBP, or proposed evidence-based projects.

    • Describe data collection process and workflow that will assist in completing progress and evaluation requirements.

    • Explain proposed efforts to utilize health technology including accessibility, collection and monitoring of relevant data for proposed BH2I project.

    Part E: Evaluation Plan (1 page)

    The evaluation section should describe applicant's plan to evaluate program activities. The evaluation plan should describe expected results and any identified metrics to support program effectiveness. Evaluation plans should incorporate questions related to outcomes and process including documentation of lessons learned.

    • Describe proposed evaluation methods including performance measures and other data relevant to evaluation outcomes including intended results (i.e., impact and outcomes), including any partners who will conduct evaluation if separate from the primary applicant.

    • Describe efforts to monitor improvements through the evaluation of increased coordination of care, co-located care, and integrated care with reference to the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions framework at http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/integrated-care-models/CIHS_Framework_Final_charts.pdf.

    B. Budget Narrative (4 pages)

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget and budget narrative should not exceed 4 pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Follow the instructions for submitting an application under the Package tab. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process.

    Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the DBH will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 12 page project narrative should include only the first budget year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 65 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Evaluation Criteria

    Applications will be reviewed and scored according to the quality of responses to the required application components in Sections A-F outlined below. In developing the required sections of this application, use the instructions provided for each section, which have been tailored to this program. The application must use the six sections (Sections A-F) in developing the application. The applicant must place the required information in the correct section or it will not be considered for review. The application will be scored according to how well the applicant addresses the requirements for each section listed below. The number of points after each section heading is the maximum number of points the review committee may assign to that section. Although scoring weights are not assigned to individual bullets, each bullet is assessed deriving the overall section score.

    A. Statement of Need (25 points)

    • The degree to which the applicant's description of the service area/target population demonstrates the need for new/increased integrated primary health care/behavioral health services.

    • How well the applicant describes the unique characteristics of the service area and population that impact access to or utilization of behavioral health care.

    • How well the applicant describes existing behavioral health care providers in the service area, including identified gaps in behavioral health care services that the applicant can address via BH2I funds.

    B. Program Planning and Implementation Approach (25 points)

    • The degree to which the applicant's purpose, goals and objectives of proposed project will address the mental and physical health needs through integrated an approach between primary health care/behavioral health services.

    • How well the applicant describes the evidence-based practices, practice-based evidence, promising practices and intervention efforts, including culturally appropriate services and interventions, to produce meaning and relevant results including additional detail to support evidence of effectiveness will support proposed project.

    • How well the applicant describes their current level of behavioral health integration (using the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions framework at http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/integrated-care-models/CIHS_Framework_Final_charts.pdf) and forecasts how they will progress to higher levels of health integration.

    • How well the applicant describe their plan to formally integrate behavioral health through:

    ○ Improving workflow in the assessment of behavioral health in primary care such as screenings, referral, and policy development.

    ○ Health information technology changes or improvements that facilitate behavioral health integration.

    ○ Improving physical environment barriers in the delivery of integrated health care.

    ○ Cross training staff, including psycho-education training for staff within primary care settings and basic medical education for behavioral health staff.

    ○ Establishing formal and informal channels of communication that facilitates behavioral health integration.

    ○ How well the applicant describes how they will identify those individuals during the screening process who may indicate opioid and/or alcohol use disorders and how they will refer them to Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT)-qualified specialty treatment providers.

    C. Staff and Organizational Capacity (20 points)

    • The degree to which the applicant describes the organization's current system of providing at least one service of primary care and/or behavioral health, including screening, assessment, and care management. Does the applicant directly deliver, operate, and/or manage at least one portion of direct primary care or behavioral health treatment services?

    • How well does the applicant identify qualified professionals who will implement proposed grant activities, administer the grant, including completion and submission of progress and financial reports, and how project continuity will be maintained if/when there is a change in the operational environment (e.g., staff turnover, change in project leadership) to ensure project stability over the life of the grant.

    • The degree to which the applicant describes the organization's plan to hire full-time equivalent (FTE) licensed behavioral health provider(s).

    • For individuals that are identified and currently on staff, include a biographical sketch for the project director, project coordinator, and other key positions as attachments to the project proposal/application. Each biographical sketch should not exceed one page. [Note: Attachments will not count against the 12 page maximum]. Do not include any of the following:

    Personally Identifiable Information;

    Resumes; or

    Curriculum Vitae.

    D. Performance Assessment & Data (10 points)

    • How well does the applicant describe plans for data collection, management, analysis and reporting for integration activities.

    • The degree to which the applicant lists expected data collection efforts that will be required as part of the EBP, or proposed evidence-based projects.

    • How well does the applicant explain proposed efforts to utilize health information technology including accessibility, collection and monitoring of relevant data for proposed BH2I project.

    • The degree to which the applicant discusses evaluation methods (including expertise and tools) that will be used to assess impacts and outcomes.

    E. Evaluation Plan (10 points)

    • How well did the applicant propose methods including quantitative and qualitative tools and resources, including techniques that will be utilized to measure outcomes, and partners who will conduct evaluation if separate from the primary applicant.

    • The degree to which the applicant describes performance measures and other data relevant to evaluation outcomes including intended results (i.e., impact and outcomes).

    • The degree to which the applicant discusses how expected results will be measured (define indicators or measures that will be used to monitor and measure progress).

    • The degree to which the applicant describes a plan to monitor improvements through the evaluation of increased coordinated care, co-located care, and integrated care using the SAMHSA-HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions six-level framework (http://www.integration.samhsa.gov/integrated-care-models/A_Standard_Framework_for_Levels_of_Integrated_Healthcare.pdf.)

    F. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 points)

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget and budget narrative should not exceed 4 pages.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second and third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The NoA is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 65 points, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2017 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Grants are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required to be submitted annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. Progress reports will include a set of standard questions that will be provided to each grantee. Additional information for reporting and associated requirements will be in the “Programmatic Terms and Conditions” in the official Notice of Award, if funded.

    A final program progress report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period at the end of the grant funding cycle.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at https://pms.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, Notice of Funding Opportunities and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.

    For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Office: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Miranda Carman, Public Health Advisor, Mental Health Lead, Division of Behavioral Health, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 08N34A, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2038, Fax: (301) 594-6213, Email: [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Willis Grant, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Michael D. Weahkee, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17103 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Preventing Alcohol-Related Deaths (PARD) Through Social Detoxification

    Announcement Type: New.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2017-IHS-PARD-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: September 16, 2017.

    Review Date: September 18, 2017.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2017.

    Signed Tribal Resolutions Due Date: September 16, 2017.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: September 16, 2017.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Clinical and Preventive Services' Division of Behavioral Health is accepting applications for cooperative agreements for Preventing Alcohol-Related Deaths (PARD) through Social Detoxification. This program is authorized under: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13; Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, Public Law 115-31, 131 Stat. 135 (2017); and 25 U.S.C. 1665a. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) under 93.933.

    Background

    Alcohol-related deaths are 520 percent greater among the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population than the general United States population (IHS Trends in Indian Health, 2014). Providing social detoxification services is often a first step toward recovery for individuals with an alcohol use disorder to minimize physical harm, including death. Detoxification alone is not sufficient treatment for alcohol use disorder but is part of the continuum of care that fosters an individual's entry into treatment and rehabilitation. Alcohol use disorders are brain disorders and not evidence of moral weakness. All individuals with alcohol use disorders should be treated with respect and dignity at all times, in a nonjudgmental and supportive manner. Services should be completed in partnership with the individual and his or her social support network with due consideration for individual background, culture, preferences, gender identity, vulnerabilities, and strengths.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to increase access to community-based prevention strategies to provide social detoxification, evaluation, stabilization, fostering patient readiness for and entry into treatment for alcohol use disorders and when appropriate, other substance use disorders. Applicants must have a fully operational and staffed social detoxification program that provides all three critical components of the detoxification process that primarily serves Indians.

    IHS will use this funding to focus on the provision of services in the Navajo and Great Plains Areas. Congress has highlighted that the community of Gallup, New Mexico, continues to face urgent needs for substance abuse treatment, residential services, and detoxification services to address an ongoing crisis of alcohol-related deaths of Tribal members. Senate Appropriations Committee Report 114-281 expressed the Committee's expectation that IHS use funds provided in its appropriation to continue its assistance toward addressing this issue in the city of Gallup, New Mexico. Additionally, IHS is aware of the urgent need for alcohol detoxification services in the Great Plains Area after the removal of liquor licenses in White Clay, Nebraska, leading to the potential for increased mortality if services are unavailable for alcohol detoxification and subsequent treatment services.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal year (FY) 2017 is approximately $2,000,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be between $500,000 and $1,500,000. The amount of funding available for competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement are subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately two awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project period is for five years and will run consecutively from September 30, 2017, to September 29, 2022.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are administered under the same policies as a grant. However, the funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    (1) Participate in community-level meetings with key stakeholders that address a strategy to combat the issue of alcohol use disorders and subsequent alcohol-related deaths.

    (2) Provide quarterly site visits for technical assistance on increasing the clinical capacity of services offered between the grantee and IHS programs, where available.

    (3) Provide subject matter expertise on policies, procedures, guidelines, and other services provided by the grantee.

    (4) Provide medical services as appropriate for individuals requiring a higher level of care, or medical clearance.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    (1) Provide quarterly reports to the IHS program officer on the number of individuals served, number of individuals referred to treatment services, number of individuals who access services more than once, number of individuals who access safe housing options.

    (2) Provide semi-annual reports on successes and challenges, in addition to the data included in quarterly reports.

    (3) Host quarterly site visits for IHS officials to discuss progress, partnerships, and clinical capacity, challenges, and opportunities for improvement.

    (4) Provide hot meals, showers, hygiene kits, and other activities of daily living that are necessary for individuals in detoxification and treatment services.

    (5) Ensure coordination with cultural services and traditional healers to provide services while individuals are participating in services.

    (6) Provide transportation to and from medical appointments or for medical clearance and ensure that medication management is offered while individuals are participating in services.

    (7) Must use 100 percent of IHS grant funds for services provided to Indians.

    III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this “New Opportunity” under this announcement, an applicant must be a public or private institution operated by a state, local, Tribal, or private entity that operates direct, on-site alcohol and/or substance use disorder treatment services, including social alcohol detoxification services, to Indians. For purposes of this announcement, “institution” means an entity that provides services on an inpatient services. Eligible applicants must be able to start services on the first day of the award. Eligible applicants must serve Indians that make up at least 85 percent of the institution's average daily census.

    Note:

    Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as Tribal resolutions, proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    Tribal Resolution

    An Indian Tribe or Tribal organization that is proposing a project affecting another Indian Tribe must include Tribal resolutions from all affected Tribes to be served. Applications by Tribal organizations will not require a specific Tribal resolution if the current Tribal resolution(s) under which they operate would encompass the proposed grant activities.

    An official signed Tribal resolution must be received by the DGM prior to a Notice of Award (NoA) being issued to any applicant selected for funding. However, if an official signed Tribal resolution cannot be submitted with the electronic application submission prior to the official application deadline date, a draft Tribal resolution must be submitted by the deadline in order for the application to be considered complete and eligible for review. The draft Tribal resolution is not in lieu of the required signed resolution, but is acceptable until a signed resolution is received. If an official signed Tribal resolution is not received by DGM when funding decisions are made, then a NoA will not be issued to that applicant and they will not receive any IHS funds until such time as they have submitted a signed resolution to the Grants Management Specialist listed in this Funding Announcement.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS DGM by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e. FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed four pages.

    • Project Narrative (must be single-spaced and not exceed 10 pages).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Letters of Support from organization's Board of Directors.

    • Tribal Resolution(s).

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: https://harvester.census.gov/facdissem/Main.aspx.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the Discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than 10 pages and must: Be single-spaced, type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 points, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they will not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this possible cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first 10 pages will be reviewed. The 10-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, Tribal resolutions, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    The page limitations below are for each narrative and budget submitted.

    Part A: Program Information (2 Pages) Section 1: Needs

    Describe the current issue of alcohol use disorders, alcohol-related deaths, and rates of alcohol-related liver cirrhosis, as well as other social and health issues impacted by alcohol-related deaths. Describe the program's current social detoxification program, who operates it, number of employees, how long it has been operating, what programs or services are currently being provided. Describe why the program is seeking additional funding and how it will be utilized to enhance current services. Provide a statement of fact on the clientele served, average daily census, and ratio of individuals served who are enrolled members of federally recognized Tribes to those who are not.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (6 Pages) Section 1: Program Plans

    Describe fully and clearly the direction the applicant plans to take to provide social detoxification, including three critical components of evaluation, stabilization, and fostering patient readiness for and entry into treatment. Describe how the applicant will provide safe housing and custodial care in a safe environment by employees who have successfully passed background checks who have been trained in social detoxification and who are familiar with the features of substance use withdrawal, have training in basic life support, and have access to emergency medical systems. Describe how the applicant will provide appropriate monitoring and security to prevent self-harm of served individuals and harm to others. Describe how the applicant has the ability to provide transportation to and from emergency departments, as needed.

    Describe fully and clearly the types of community partnerships and referral providers to provide health and behavioral health treatment services, among others. Include information how the applicant will implement a communication and support strategy that includes with family members of individuals served (with their consent). Describe the applicant's ability to provide daily activities of living, such as exercise, showers, and hot meals, personal hygiene, blankets, appropriate clothing. Include information on how the applicant will provide culturally appropriate interventions and activities. Provide details on nurse support for medical issues and medication management and referral to a higher level of care, when needed; medication management, assessments, and screening of clients; and case management services.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe how the program intends to evaluate its activities to include successes, challenges, outputs, and outcomes.

    Part C: Program Report (2 Pages)

    Section 1: Describe your organization's capacity to provide the activities that align with the purpose of this funding opportunity. Please identify current staffing and key personnel who will be responsible for the management of the cooperative agreement. Describe significant program activities and accomplishments over the past five years associated with the goals of this announcement.

    B. Budget Narrative (4 Pages)

    This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable allowable, allocable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Gettys ([email protected],) DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Follow the instructions for submitting an application under the Package tab. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process.

    Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding. Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the Division of Behavioral Health will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, you may access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The 10 page narrative should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 70 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Need for Assistance (30 Points)

    • The degree to which the applicant describes the issue of alcohol use disorders, alcohol-related deaths, and other social and health issues attributed to alcohol in the community they serve.

    • The degree to which the applicant demonstrates the need for funding and how the funding will complement, increase, and/or expand the services currently provided.

    • This section must include the applicant's service population, average daily census, and statement of fact that more than 85 percent of the clientele they serve are members of federally recognized Tribes. Without this information, applicants will receive a score of 0 for this section.

    B. Work Plan, Approach, and Program Approach (40 Points)

    • The degree to which the applicant plans to provide social detoxification, safe housing, and outpatient treatment, including custodial care in a safe environment.

    • How well the applicant describes the process of ensuring employees have passed background checks and are training in appropriate substance use disorder intervention and treatment.

    • How well the applicant describes its community partnerships and referral network for health and behavioral health treatment services.

    • How well the applicant describes appropriate monitoring of individuals accessing services and provides security services to ensure safety and prevention of self-harm and harm to others.

    • How well the applicant describes its communication strategy with family members.

    • How well the applicant describes its community partnerships and referral network for treatment services, including when medical detoxification is required.

    • How well the applicant describes its ability to provide activities of daily living, exercise, showers, hot meals, cultural activities, blankets, and appropriate clothing.

    • How well the applicant describes its ability to provide nurse support for medical issues and medication management, assessments, screening, and case management.

    C. Program Evaluation (10 Points)

    • How well the applicant provides a plan to evaluate its own impact, including successes and challenges, as well as a plan for the type of data that will be collected and submitted on a quarterly basis that demonstrate the program's outputs and annual basis that demonstrate the program's annual outcomes.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (10 Points)

    • How well the applicant describes the capacity to provide services on day 1 of the award.

    • How well the applicant describes the operations and management of the services currently being provided.

    • The degree to which the applicant describes its staffing level, experience and education of staff, and key personnel who will manage the project.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 Points)

    • How clear the applicant demonstrates each budget item aligns with its proposed work plan and program approach.

    • The degree to which the applicant budgets for evaluation activities.

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second, third, fourth, and/or fifth year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional Documents Can Be Uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e. data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS Program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the Grants Management Officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 70 and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorized Organizational Representative that is identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application. The IHS program office will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2017 the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note:

    Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations and policies:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually, within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, a summary of progress to date or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress, and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report (FFR or SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at https://pms.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: The Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting.

    For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    F. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Office: (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/index.asp (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line), Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email: [email protected]

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Dr. Beverly Cotton, Director, Division of Behavioral Health, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 08N34A, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-4754, Email: [email protected]

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Willis Grant, Senior Grants Management Specialist, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2214, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, Email: [email protected]

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Michael D. Weahkee, Assistant Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, Acting Director, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17102 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Initial Review Group Pediatrics Subcommittee.

    Date: October 12, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Rita Anand, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Division of Scientific Review National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7002, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1487, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 8, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17041 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Multi-Site Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials AIDS Applications.

    Date: September 7, 2017.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Keary A Cope, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7190, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-827-7912, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 8, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17038 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Biomedical Research Review Subcommittee.

    Date: October 17, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Conference Room 3002, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Philippe Marmillot, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2017, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-2861, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Initial Review Group; Neuroscience Review Subcommittee.

    Date: October 24, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Terrace Level Conference Room 508, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact Person: Beata Buzas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Extramural Activities, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Room 2081, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-0800, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 8, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17039 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Advisory Board.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance 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. The open session will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (http://videocast.nih.gov).

    A portion of the National Cancer Advisory Board meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Advisory Board.

    Date: September 12, 2017.

    Open: 1:00 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.

    Agenda: Acting Director's and program reports and presentations; business of the Board.

    Closed: 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Cancer Institute—Shady Grove, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room TE406 & 408, Rockville, MD 20850 (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Paulette S. Gray, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Division of Extramural Activities, National Cancer Institute—Shady Grove, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room 7W444, Bethesda, MD 20892, 240-276-6340, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the 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.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NCI-Shady Grove campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: NCAB: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/ncab/ncab.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 8, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17037 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods; Announcement of Meeting; Request for Comments SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM). SACATM advises the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), and the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. The meeting is open to the public, and registration is requested for both public attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822.

    DATES:

    Meeting: September 18-19, 2017; it begins 9:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) each day and continues until adjournment.

    Written Public Comment Submissions: Deadline is September 11, 2017.

    Registration for Oral Comments: Deadline is September 11, 2017.

    Registration for the meeting and to View Webcast: Deadline is September 19, 2017.

    Registration to view the meeting via the webcast is required.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: Natcher Conference Center, Building 45, Room E1 & E2, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20984.

    Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration information, and background materials should be posted at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822 by August 15, 2017.

    Webcast: The meeting will be webcast; the URL will be provided to those who register for viewing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Mary Wolfe, Designated Federal Official for SACATM, Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, Division of NTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: 919-541-7539, fax: 301-451-6890, email: [email protected] Hand Deliver/Courier address: 530 Davis Drive, Room K2130, Morrisville, NC 27560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information: A preliminary agenda, roster of SACATM members, and background materials should be available by August 15, 2017, on the SACATM meeting Web site (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822) and available upon request from the Designated Federal Official. Public comments and any additional information will be posted when available. The meeting's agenda will focus on the US strategic roadmap for implementation of new approaches to safety evaluation, which is under development, and ICCVAM agencies' activities related to the development and implementation of alternative methods. Following the meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and available on the SACATM Web site or upon request from the Designated Federal Official.

    Meeting and Registration: This meeting is open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comments. The public may attend the meeting at Natcher Conference Center, where attendance is limited only by the space available, or view the webcast. Registration is required to view the webcast; the URL for the webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration. Individuals who plan to attend and/or provide oral comments are encouraged to register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822 by September 11, 2017, to facilitate planning for the meeting. Individuals are encouraged to access the Web site to stay abreast of the most current information regarding the meeting. Visitor information for those attending in person is available at https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/visitor-information. Campus access and security information is located at https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/visitor-information/campus-access-security. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Ms. Robbin Guy at phone: 919-541-4363 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Request for Comments: Both written and oral public input on the agenda topics is invited. Written comments submitted in response to this notice should be received by September 11, 2017. Comments will be posted on the SACATM meeting Web site and persons submitting them will be identified by their name and affiliation and/or sponsoring organization, if applicable. Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation (if applicable), and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Guidelines for public comments are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/guidelines_public_comments_508.pdf.

    Time is allotted during the meeting for the public to present oral comments on the agenda topics. Public comments can be presented in-person at the meeting or by teleconference line. There are 50 lines for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 9:00 a.m. until adjournment on September 18 and 19; although SACATM will receive public comments only during the formal public comment periods, as indicated on the preliminary agenda. Each organization is allowed one time slot per agenda topic. Each speaker is allotted at least 7 minutes, which if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the SACATM chair.

    Persons wishing to present oral comments are encouraged to register using the SACATM meeting registration form (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822) by September 11, 2017. Registrants should indicate the topic(s) on which they plan to comment and whether they will present comments in-person or via the teleconference. The access number for the teleconference line for public comments will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Registrants are requested to, if possible, send a copy of their statement to [email protected] by September 11, 2017, to enable review by SACATM, NICEATM, ICCVAM, and NIEHS/NTP staff prior to the meeting. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. Registration for on-site oral comments will also be available on the meeting day, although time allowed for comments by these registrants may be limited and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 30 copies of the statement for distribution and to supplement the record.

    Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM: ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 16 federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative safety testing methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological and safety-testing methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that reduce, refine (decrease or eliminate pain and distress), or replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM.

    NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts independent validation studies to assess the usefulness and limitations of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods and strategies applicable to the needs of U.S. Federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm.

    SACATM was established in response to the ICCVAM Authorization Act [Section 285l-3(d)] and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors. SACATM advises ICCVAM, NICEATM, and the Director of the NIEHS and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. SACATM provides advice on priorities and activities related to the development, validation, scientific review, regulatory acceptance, implementation, and national and international harmonization of new, revised, and alternative toxicological test methods. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings, can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167.

    Dated: August 1, 2017. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17036 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grant (R34), Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01) and SBIR Phase II Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44).

    Date: September 12, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Maryam Feili-Hariri, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-669-5026, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 8, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17040 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council will meet on August 25, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m., in Rockville, MD.

    The meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by the Initial Review Group, and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants. Therefore, this meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (c)(6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    Committee Name: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 25, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. (Closed).

    Place: SAMHSA Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Contact: Matthew J. Aumen, Designated Federal Officer, SAMHSA/CSAP National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, Email: [email protected]

    Carlos R. Castillo, Committee Management Officer, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17074 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0194] Waterway Suitability Assessment for Operation of Liquefied Hazardous Gas Terminal; Port Arthur, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Coast Guard regulations, Lynx Terminals LLC (Lynx Terminals) has submitted a Letter of Intent and Preliminary Waterway Suitability Assessment to the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, TX (COTP) regarding the company's plans to handle and transport Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) at the Port of Port Arthur docks in Port Arthur, TX. The Coast Guard is notifying the public of this proposed increase in LHG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway and is soliciting comments relevant to the Coast Guard's preparation of a Letter of Recommendation (LOR) for issue to the federal, state or local agency with jurisdiction over the proposed facility.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received on or before September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0194 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Commander Loan T. O'Brien, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-723-6564, email: Loan.T.O'[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments and related material in response to this notice through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published. To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2017-0194) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the line associated with this notice and request for comment We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a public meeting would aid the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur (COTP) in validating the information in the WSA and preparing the Letter of Recommendation (LOR), we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    Discussion

    Under 33 CFR 127.007(a), an owner or operator planning to build a new facility handling Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG), or an owner or operator planning new construction to expand or modify marine terminal operations in an existing facility handling LHG, where the construction, expansion, or modification would result in an increase in the size and/or frequency of LHG marine traffic on the waterway associated with the proposed facility or modification to an existing facility, must submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) to the COTP of the zone in which the facility is or will be located. Under 33 CFR 127.007(e), an owner or operator planning such new construction or expansion of an existing facility must also file or update a Waterway Suitability Assessment (WSA) that addresses the proposed increase in LHG marine traffic in the associated waterway. Lynx Terminals, located in Port Arthur, TX submitted an LOI and WSA on August 09, 2016 regarding the company's proposed plans to handle and transport LHG at the Port of Port Arthur, TX facility.

    Under 33 CFR 127.009, after receiving an LOI, the COTP issues a LOR as to the suitability of the waterway for LNG or LHG marine traffic to the appropriate jurisdictional authorities. The LOR is based on a series of factors listed in 33 CFR 127.009 that relate to the physical nature of the affected waterway and issues of safety and security associated with LHG marine traffic on the affected waterway.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments on the proposed increase in LHG marine traffic on the Sabine-Neches Waterway. The Coast Guard believes that input from the public may be useful to the COTP with respect to validating the information provided in Lynx Terminals' WSA and development of the LOR. Additionally, the Coast Guard intends to task the Area Maritime Security Committee, Port Arthur, TX and the Southeast Texas Waterways Advisory Council with forming a subcommittee comprised of affected port users and stakeholders. The goal of this subcommittee will be to gather information to help the COTP assess the suitability of the associated waterway for increased LHG marine traffic as it relates to navigational safety and maritime security. In addition to the other documents referenced in this notice, a brief summation of LYNX Terminals' proposal is available for viewing in the public docket for this notice.

    On January 24, 2011, the Coast Guard published Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 01-2011, “Guidance Related to Waterfront Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facilities”. NVIC 01-2011 provides guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build and operate LNG facilities. While NVIC 01-2011 is specific to LNG, it provides useful process information and guidance for owners and operators seeking approval to build and operate LHG facilities as well. The Coast Guard will refer to NVIC 01-2011 for process information and guidance in evaluating Lynx Terminals' WSA. A copy of NVIC 01-2011 is available for viewing in the public docket for this notice and also on the Coast Guard's Web site at http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/nvic/2010s.asp.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Jaqueline Twomey, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17106 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that CBP is modifying the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning ACE export manifest capability, by making certain of the export manifest data elements optional. CBP is also extending the test and will be accepting additional applications for participation in this modified test from all parties meeting the eligibility requirements.

    DATES:

    The modifications of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test set forth in this document are effective August 14, 2017. The modified test will run until August 10, 2018. Applications from additional participants may be submitted at any time. Current test participants do not need to reapply. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the test may be submitted at any time during the test period to the email address below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications to participate in the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test must be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test Application”. Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may also be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “Comment on ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert C. Rawls, Outbound Enforcement and Policy Branch, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit export manifest data to CBP electronically, at least 4 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft in preparation for departure from the United States. The ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is authorized under § 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures.

    CBP announced the procedures and criteria related to participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test in a notice published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39790). This test was originally set to run for approximately two years. For further details on the background and procedures regarding the test, please refer to the July 10, 2015 notice.

    Expansion of Test to Additional Participants

    In the July 10, 2015 notice announcing the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test, CBP stated that participation in the test was limited to nine stakeholders composed of air carriers and freight forwarders who met the eligibility requirements. This notice announces that the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is now open to all eligible applicants. CBP will endeavor to accept all new eligible applicants on a first come first serve basis; however, if the number of eligible applicants exceeds CBP's administrative capabilities, CBP reserves the right to select eligible participants in order to achieve a diverse participant pool.

    Eligibility Requirements

    Except for the expansion to additional participants, the eligibility requirements for the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test set forth in the July 10, 2015 notice are not changing. For clarity and convenience to the public, CBP sets forth below the eligibility requirements for participation in the test.

    Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Cargo-IMP, AIR CAMIR, IATA XML, or Unified XML,1 and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.

    1 Unified XML was not yet functional at the time of the original Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test. It is now fully functional and available for use.

    There are no restrictions with regard to the participant's organization size, location or commodity type for participation in the test.

    Modification of the Filing Condition of Certain Data Elements

    One of the main purposes of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test is to test the feasibility of requiring the manifest information to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the aircraft. Another purpose is to test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifest data for air cargo electronically to ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the aircraft. Under the current regulatory requirements, advance electronic filing of export data is generally not required. In most cases, the aircraft commander or agent must file a general declaration on CBP Form 7507 pertaining to the outbound flight. Also, the aircraft commander or agent must file the air cargo manifest, CBP Form 7509, with CBP at each port where export cargo is loaded on the aircraft. Additionally, the airline must file the complete air cargo manifest generally within 4 days after departure of the aircraft. See 19 CFR 122.72, 19 CFR 122.73, 19 CFR 122.74, 19 CFR 122.75, and 19 CFR 192.14. The U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) must file any required Electronic Export Information (EEI) for the cargo on the aircraft. See 15 CFR part 30. (For additional details about filing requirements for the aircraft commander and USPPI, please see the July 10, 2015 notice.) The data and the results of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test will aid CBP in determining which parties are the best source of the export manifest data and when the data is available to be submitted to CBP.

    CBP has been consulting with the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) to address ongoing issues concerning the quality, accessibility, and timeliness of export manifest data received during the test. Through this process, the COAC advised CBP that certain data elements currently required under the test may not be available to the party submitting the export manifest data to CBP 4 hours prior to loading the cargo on the aircraft in preparation for departure from the United States and urged CBP to make those data elements optional. For some, such as the in-bond number, COAC has suggested that the information may not be necessary because it is available to CBP through other electronic systems.

    After evaluating the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test and considering the COAC's comments, CBP has determined that, in order to better test the functionality and feasibility of submitting the specified export data 4 hours in advance, five of the mandatory or conditional data elements should be changed to optional. This will enable participants to submit the optional information when and if it is available. These data elements are listed below. (Data elements which are “mandatory” must be provided to CBP for every shipment. Data elements which are “conditional” must be provided to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. Data elements which are “optional” may be provided to CBP but are not required).

    • Number of pieces/unit of measure (Data Element #11) • Number of house air waybills (Data Element #13) • Split air waybill indicator (Data Element #18) • In-bond number (Data Element #21) • Mode of transportation (Data Element #22)

    The remaining data elements under the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test continue to be mandatory, conditional or optional as provided in the July 10, 2015 notice. The full list of data elements is set forth below. Unless otherwise noted, the data elements are mandatory.

    (1) Exporting Carrier (As reflected in the July 10, 2015 notice, CBP finds this term to be clearer than the term “Owner/Operator” used on CBP Form 7509.) (2) Marks of nationality and registration (3) Flight number (4) Port of lading (5) Port of unlading (6) Scheduled date of departure (As reflected in the July 10, 2015 notice, CBP finds this term to be clearer than the term “Date” used on CBP Form 7509.) (7) Consolidator (conditional) (8) De-consolidator (conditional) (9) Air waybill type (Master, House, Simple or Sub) (10) Air waybill number (11) Number of pieces and unit of measure (optional) (12) Weight (kg./lb.) (13) Number of house air waybills (optional) (14) Shipper name and address (15) Consignee name and address (16) Cargo description (As reflected in the July 10, 2015 notice, CBP finds this term to be clearer than the term “Nature of goods” used on CBP Form 7509.) (17) AES Internal Transaction Number (ITN) or AES Exemption Statement/Exception Classification (per shipment) (18) Split air waybill indicator (optional) (19) Hazmat indicator (Yes/No) (20) UN Number (conditional) (If the hazmat indicator is yes, the four-digit UN (United Nations) Number assigned to the hazardous material must be provided.) (21) In-bond number (optional) (22) Mode of transportation (Air, containerized or Air, non-containerized) (optional)

    If, after the conclusion of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test, CBP decides to conduct rulemaking to amend the regulations concerning the filing of the air export cargo manifest, CBP will reevaluate the filing conditions for each data element to determine the feasibility of requiring that data element to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the aircraft.

    Extension of the Test

    To continue further evaluation of the ACE Export Manifest for Air Cargo Test, CBP is extending the test for an additional year. The expanded and modified test will run until August 10, 2018.

    Applicability of Initial Test Notice

    Unless explicitly changed by this or subsequent notices published in the Federal Register, all other aspects of the initial test announced in the July 10, 2015 notice, including test procedures and conditions, the application process, and the waiver of certain regulatory requirements, remain in effect.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collections of information in this NCAP test have been approved by OMB in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB control number 1651-0001.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17080 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that CBP is modifying the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning ACE export manifest capability, by making certain of the export manifest data elements optional. CBP is also extending the test and will be accepting additional applications for participation in this modified test from all parties meeting the eligibility requirements.

    DATES:

    The modifications of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test set forth in this document are effective August 14, 2017. The modified test will run until September 21, 2018. Applications from additional participants may be submitted at any time. Current test participants do not need to reapply. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the test may be submitted at any time during the test period to the email address below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications to participate in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test must be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected]hs.gov. In the subject line of the email, please use “ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test Application”. Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may also be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “Comment on ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert C. Rawls, Outbound Enforcement and Policy Branch, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit export manifest data to CBP electronically, at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States. The ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is authorized under § 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. See Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-21.

    CBP announced the procedures and criteria related to participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test in a notice published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2015 (80 FR 50644). On October 20, 2015, CBP issued a notice published in the Federal Register (80 FR 63575) correcting an error in the initial notice that misstated the technical capability requirements for submitting data to CBP. This test was originally set to run for approximately two years. For further details on the background and procedures regarding the test, please refer to the August 20, 2015 notice.

    Expansion of Test to Additional Participants

    In the August 20, 2015 notice announcing the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, CBP stated that participation in the test was limited to nine stakeholders composed of a mix of a certain number of vessel carriers and freight forwarders or non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOCCs) who met the eligibility requirements. This notice announces that the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is now open to all eligible applicants. CBP will endeavor to accept all new eligible applicants on a first come first serve basis; however, if the number of eligible applicants exceeds CBP's administrative capabilities, CBP reserves the right to select eligible participants in order to achieve a diverse participant pool.

    Eligibility Requirements

    Except for the expansion to additional participants, the eligibility requirements for the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test have not changed since the October 20, 2015 correction notice. For clarity and convenience to the public, CBP sets forth below the eligibility requirements for participation in the test.

    Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Ocean CAMIR, ANSI X12, or Unified XML,1 and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.

    1 Unified XML was not yet functional at the time of the original Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test. It is now fully functional and available for use.

    There are no restrictions with regard to the participant's organization size, location, or commodity type for participation in the test.

    Modification of the Filing Condition of Certain Data Elements

    One of the main purposes of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test is to test the feasibility of requiring certain manifest information to be filed electronically in ACE at least 24 hours before the cargo is loaded on the vessel. Another purpose is to test the functionality regarding the filing of such export manifest data within the above specified time. Under the current regulatory requirements, the complete manifest is generally not required to be submitted until after the departure of the vessel. See 19 CFR 4.75, 4.76 and 4.84. The data and the results of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test will aid CBP in determining which parties are the best source of the export manifest data and when the data is available to be submitted to CBP.

    CBP has been consulting with the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) to address ongoing issues concerning the quality, accessibility, and timeliness of export manifest data received during the test. Through this process, the COAC advised CBP that certain data elements currently required under the test may not be available to the party submitting the export manifest data to CBP 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the vessel in preparation for departure from the United States and urged CBP to make those data elements optional.

    After evaluating the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test and considering COAC's comments, CBP has determined that, in order to better test the functionality and feasibility of submitting the specified export data at least 24 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the vessel, four of the previously mandatory or conditional data elements should be changed to optional. This will enable participants to submit the optional information when and if it is available. (Data elements which are “mandatory” must be provided to CBP for every shipment. Data elements which are “conditional” must be provided to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. Data elements which are “optional” may be provided to CBP but are not required.)

    CBP is modifying the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test to change the following four mandatory or conditional data elements to optional:

    • Name of the Master (Data Element #4) • Number of House Bills of Lading (Data Element #9) • Split Shipment Indicator (Data Element #22) • Portion of Split Shipments (Data Element #23)

    The remaining data elements under the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test continue to be mandatory, conditional, or optional as provided in the August 20, 2015 notice. The full list of data elements is set forth below. Unless otherwise noted, the data elements are mandatory.

    (1) Mode of transportation (Vessel, containerized or Vessel, non-containerized) (2) Name of ship or vessel (3) Nationality of ship (4) Name of Master (optional) (5) Port of loading (6) Port of discharge (7) Bill of Lading number (Master and House) (8) Bill of Lading type (Master, House, Simple or Sub) (9) Number of House Bills of Lading (optional) (10) Marks and Numbers (conditional) (11) Container Numbers (conditional) (12) Seal Numbers (conditional) (13) Number and kind of packages (14) Description of goods (15) Gross Weight (lb. or kg.) or Measurements (per HTSUS) (16) Shipper name and address (17) Consignee name and address (18) Notify Party name and address (conditional) (19) Country of Ultimate Destination (20) In-bond number (conditional) (21) Internal Transaction Number (ITN) or AES Exemption Statement (per shipment) (22) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) (optional) (23) Portion of split shipment (e.g., 1 of 10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final, etc.) (optional) (24) Hazmat Indicator (Yes/No) (25) UN Number (conditional) (If the hazmat indicator is yes, then UN (for United Nations Number) or NA (North American Number) and the corresponding 4-digit identification number assigned to the hazardous material must be provided.) (26) Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Number (conditional) (27) Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) or Product Identification Number (conditional) (For shipments of used vehicles, the VIN must be reported, or for used vehicles that do not have a VIN, the Product Identification Number must be reported.)

    If, after the conclusion of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, CBP decides to conduct rulemaking to amend the regulations concerning the filing of the vessel export cargo manifest, CBP will reevaluate the filing conditions for each data element to determine the feasibility of requiring that data element to be filed electronically in ACE within the specified time before the cargo is loaded on the vessel.

    Extension of the Test

    To continue further evaluation of the ACE Export Manifest for Vessel Cargo Test, CBP is extending the test for an additional year. The expanded and modified test will run until September 21, 2018.

    Applicability of Initial Test Notice

    Unless explicitly changed by this or subsequent notices published in the Federal Register, all other aspects of the initial test announced in the August 20, 2015 notice (and corrected in the October 20, 2015 notice), including test procedures and conditions, the application process, and the waiver of certain regulatory requirements, remain in effect.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collections of information in this NCAP test have been approved by OMB in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB control number 1651-0001.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17079 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [CBP Dec. No. 17-09] Expansion of Global Entry Eligibility to Citizens of the Republic of Colombia, Citizens of the Republic of Singapore, and Citizens of Switzerland AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) operates the Global Entry international trusted traveler program at most major U.S. airports. Global Entry allows pre-approved participants dedicated CBP processing into the United States using Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. This document announces that CBP is expanding eligibility for Global Entry to include citizens of the Republic of Colombia, citizens of the Republic of Singapore, and citizens of Switzerland. All of these individuals also must satisfy the requirements to participate in the Global Entry program. Additionally, this document announces that U.S. citizens who participate in Global Entry will have the option to apply for membership in Singapore's enhanced-Immigration Automated Clearance System (e-IACS).

    DATES:

    Applications will be accepted from qualified citizens of the Republic of Colombia, qualified citizens of the Republic of Singapore, and qualified citizens of Switzerland beginning on August 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Garret Conover, Office of Field Operations, (202) 325-4062, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background Global Entry Program

    Global Entry is a voluntary program that provides pre-approved travelers arriving in the United States dedicated CBP processing at Global Entry kiosks located at designated airports. In a final rule published in the Federal Register (77 FR 5681) on February 6, 2012, CBP promulgated the regulation (8 CFR 235.12) to establish Global Entry as an ongoing voluntary regulatory program. Section 235.12 contains a description of the program, the eligibility criteria, the application and enrollment process, and the redress procedures. Travelers who wish to participate in Global Entry must apply via the Global On-Line Enrollment System (GOES) Web site, https://goes-app.cbp.dhs.gov, and pay the applicable fee. Applications for Global Entry must be completed and submitted electronically. The list of airports with Global Entry kiosks is available at http://www.globalentry.gov.

    Eligibility for participation in Global Entry is limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, U.S. lawful permanent residents, and certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP regarding international trusted traveler programs. Specifically, certain nonimmigrant aliens from countries that have entered into arrangements with CBP concerning international trusted traveler programs may be eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry. CBP announces the arrangement by publication of a notice in the Federal Register. The notice includes the country, the scope of eligibility of nonimmigrant aliens from that country (e.g., whether only citizens of the foreign country or citizens and noncitizens are eligible) and other conditions that may apply based on the terms of the arrangement. See 8 CFR 235.12(b)(1)(ii). Since establishing the Global Entry program, CBP has announced several expansions of the program.1

    1 For further information see 75 FR 82202, December 29, 2010 (utilization of Global Entry kiosks by NEXUS and SENTRI participants); 78 FR 48706, August 9, 2013 (expansion to certain citizens of the Republic of Korea and expansion through limited pilots to a number of citizens from the United Kingdom, the State of Qatar and Germany); 80 FR 1509, January 12, 2015 (expansion to certain citizens of Panama); 81 FR 7822, February 16, 2016 (expansion to all German citizens); and, 81 FR 45170, July 12, 2016 (expansion to all citizens of the United Kingdom).

    CBP may deny applicants enrollment in the Global Entry program for various reasons. An individual who is inadmissible to the United States under U.S. immigration law or has, at any time, been granted a waiver of inadmissibility or parole is ineligible to participate in Global Entry. CBP will automatically reject applications from such individuals. CBP also may reject an application for Global Entry if an applicant has ever been arrested for, or convicted of, a criminal offense, or if the individual has ever been found in violation of customs or immigration laws, or of any criminal law. Additionally, CBP will not accept an applicant for participation in Global Entry if CBP determines that the applicant presents a potential risk of terrorism, or criminality (including smuggling), or if CBP cannot sufficiently determine that the applicant meets all the program eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are set forth in more detail in the Global Entry final rule and 8 CFR 235.12. See also http://www.globalentry.gov.

    The Republic of Colombia

    On April 27, 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia signed a Joint Statement regarding the development of an initiative involving their respective international trusted traveler programs. In the Joint Statement, the parties agreed to cooperate in the expansion of Global Entry to certain eligible citizens of Colombia and to mutually develop procedures for the implementation and operation of the expansion. Based on this Joint Statement, CBP is announcing that citizens of the Republic of Colombia are eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry.

    In order to apply for Global Entry, citizens of the Republic of Colombia must first complete the on-line application located on the GOES Web site, pay the nonrefundable Global Entry fee, and satisfy all the requirements of Global Entry. These applicants will then undergo a thorough risk assessment by both CBP and the Republic of Colombia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and an interview with CBP. The vetting criteria were mutually developed and are consistent with each agency's applicable domestic laws and policies.

    Once the risk assessment has been completed, CBP will notify the applicant of the results and next steps necessary to complete the enrollment. More information on how to apply is available at www.globalentry.gov.

    U.S. Citizens' Participation in Colombia's Trusted Traveler Program

    Consistent with the Joint Statement, U.S. citizens who participate in Global Entry will have the option to apply for participation in Colombia's trusted traveler program, once such program is established. Once the program is established, CBP plans to announce it on CBP's Web site at http://www.globalentry.gov.

    The Republic of Singapore

    On December 1, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP and the Ministry of Home Affairs for the Republic of Singapore, Immigration & Checkpoints Authority signed a Joint Statement regarding the development of an initiative involving their respective international trusted traveler programs. In the Joint Statement, the parties agreed to cooperate in the expansion of their respective trusted traveler programs to eligible citizens of Signapore and the United States and to mutually develop procedures for the implementation and operation of the expansions. Based on this Joint Statement, CBP is announcing that citizens of the Republic of Singapore are eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry.

    In order to apply for Global Entry, citizens of the Republic of Singapore must first complete the on-line application located on the GOES Web site, pay the nonrefundable Global Entry fee, and satisfy all the requirements of Global Entry. These applicants will then undergo a thorough risk assessment by both CBP and the Republic of Singapore's Immigration & Checkpoints Authority and an interview with CBP. The vetting criteria were mutually developed and are consistent with each agency's applicable domestic laws and policies.

    Once the risk assessment has been completed, CBP will notify the applicant of the results and next steps necessary to complete the enrollment. More information on how to apply is available at www.globalentry.gov.

    U.S. Citizens' Participation in Singapore's Enhanced-Immigration Automated Clearance System (e-IACS)

    Pursuant to the Joint Statement, U.S. citizens who are Global Entry participants will have the option to apply for Singapore's enhanced-Immigration Automated Clearance System (e-IACS). e-IACS is a trusted traveler program in Singapore that uses automated kiosks to offer expedited processing for travelers through clearance formalities when entering the Republic of Singapore. All U.S. applicants must apply for e-IACS directly with the Government of Singapore, be thoroughly vetted by the Republic of Singapore, meet specific passport and travel qualifications, and appear in person at an e-IACS enrollment center to complete the enrollment process. There is no fee for participation in e-IACS. The Republic of Singapore will notify the U.S. applicant directly about whether he or she was approved for e-IACS. More information about how to apply for e-IACS is available at https://ltpass.ica.gov.sg/ttp/.

    Switzerland

    On December 16, 2015, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, CBP and the Federal Department of Justice and Police of the Swiss Confederation signed a Joint Statement regarding the development of an initiative involving their respective international trusted traveler programs. In the Joint Statement, the parties agreed to cooperate in the expansion of Global Entry to certain eligible citizens of Switzerland and to mutually develop procedures for the implementation and operation of the expansion. Based on this Joint Statement, CBP is announcing that citizens of Switzerland are eligible to apply for participation in Global Entry.

    In order to apply for Global Entry, citizens of Switzerland must first obtain clearance from the Swiss Federal Office of Police. CBP will not process applications from citizens of Switzerland unless such clearance has been obtained. To apply for clearance, an applicant must submit an application and pay a nonrefundable fee to the Swiss Federal Office of Police. The Swiss Federal Office of Police will notify the applicants whether clearance has been granted.

    After the applicant has obtained the necessary clearance, the applicant must complete the Global Entry on-line application located on the GOES Web site, pay the nonrefundable Global Entry fee, and satisfy all the requirements of Global Entry. These applicants will then undergo a thorough risk assessment by both CBP and the Federal Department of Justice and Police of the Swiss Confederation and an interview with CBP. The vetting criteria were mutually developed and are consistent with each agency's applicable domestic laws and policies.

    After the risk assessment has been completed, CBP will notify the applicant of the results and next steps necessary to complete the enrollment. More information on how to apply is available at www.globalentry.gov.

    U.S. Citizens' Participation in Switzerland's Trusted Traveler Program

    Consistent with the Joint Statement, U.S. citizens who participate in Global Entry will have the option to apply for participation in Switzerland's trusted traveler program, once such program is established. Once the program is established, CBP plans to announce it on CBP's Web site at http://www.globalentry.gov.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17077 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test: Expansion of Test To Include Additional Participants, Modification of Required Data Elements, and Extension of Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that CBP is modifying the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test, a National Customs Automation Program (NCAP) test concerning ACE export manifest capability by changing the reporting requirements for certain data elements. CBP is also extending the test and will be accepting additional applications for participation in this modified test from all parties meeting the eligibility requirements.

    DATES:

    The modifications of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test set forth in this document are effective August 14, 2017. The modified test will run until October 9, 2018. Applications from additional participants may be submitted at any time. Current test participants do not need to reapply. Comments concerning this notice and all aspects of the test may be submitted at any time during the test period to the email address below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications to participate in the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test must be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test Application”. Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may also be submitted via email to CBP Export Manifest at [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “Comment on ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert C. Rawls, Outbound Enforcement and Policy Branch, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit export manifest data to CBP electronically, at least 2 hours prior to loading of the cargo onto the train in preparation for departure from the United States or, for empty rail cars, upon assembly of the train. The ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test is authorized under § 101.9(b) of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 101.9(b)), which provides for the testing of NCAP programs or procedures. See Treasury Decision (T.D.) 95-21.

    CBP announced the procedures and criteria related to participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test in a notice published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54305). This test was originally set to run for approximately two years. For further details on the background and procedures regarding the test, please refer to the September 9, 2015 notice.

    Expansion of Test to Additional Participants

    In the September 9, 2015 notice announcing the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test, CBP stated that participation in the test was limited to nine stakeholders composed of rail carriers who met the eligibility requirements. This notice announces that the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test is now open to all eligible applicants. CBP will endeavor to accept all new eligible applicants on a first come first serve basis. If the number of eligible applicants exceeds CBP's administrative capabilities, CBP reserves the right to select eligible participants in order to achieve a diverse participant pool.

    Eligibility Requirements

    Except for the expansion to additional participants, the eligibility requirements for the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test have not changed since the September 9, 2015 notice. For clarity and convenience to the public, CBP sets forth below the eligibility requirements for participation in the test.

    Participation in the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test is limited to those parties able to electronically transmit manifest data in the identified acceptable format. Prospective ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test participants must have the technical capability to electronically submit data to CBP and receive response message sets via Cargo-ANSI X12 (also known as “Rail X12”) or Unified XML, 1 and must successfully complete certification testing with their client representative. Once parties have applied to participate, they must complete a test phase to determine if the data transmission is in the required readable format. Applicants will be notified once they have successfully completed testing and are permitted to participate fully in the test. In selecting participants, CBP will take into consideration the order in which the applications are received.

    1 Unified XML was not yet functional at the time of the original Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test. It is now fully functional and available for use.

    There are no restrictions with regard to the participant's organization size, location, or commodity type for participation in the test.

    Modification of the Filing Condition of Certain Data Elements

    One of the main purposes of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test is to test the feasibility of requiring rail carriers to file export manifest data to CBP. Another purpose is to test the functionality regarding the filing of export manifest data for rail cargo electronically to ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the train. Under the current regulatory requirements, the rail carrier is not required to submit a paper or electronic manifest for cargo exported from the United States by rail. The U.S. Principal Party in Interest (USPPI) is required to transmit and verify system acceptance of certain advance information to CBP for export cargo leaving the United States by rail See 19 CFR 192.14. For further details about current requirements, please refer to the September 9, 2015 notice. The data and the results of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test will aid CBP in determining which parties are the best source of the export manifest data and when the data is available to be submitted to CBP.

    CBP has been consulting with the Commercial Customs Operations Advisory Committee (COAC) to address ongoing issues concerning the quality, accessibility, and timeliness of export manifest data received during the test. One issue of concern to COAC is the availability of certain data elements currently required under the test 2 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the train in preparation for departure from the United States. COAC urged CBP to change the filing condition of those data elements.

    After evaluating the initial phase of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test and considering COAC's comments, CBP has determined that, in order to better test the functionality and feasibility of submitting the specified export data 2 hours prior to loading of the cargo on the train, the filing condition for nine of the data elements should be changed. The modified filing conditions will enable CBP to better determine the appropriate reporting requirements for each data element. (Data elements which are “mandatory” must be provided to CBP for every shipment. Data elements which are “conditional” must be provided to CBP only if the particular information pertains to the cargo. Data elements which are “optional” may be provided to CBP but are not required.)

    CBP is modifying the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test to change the following eight mandatory or conditional data elements to optional:

    • Mode of Transportation (Rail, containerized or Rail, non-containerized) (Data Element #1) • Place where the carrier took possession (Data Element #14) • Country of Ultimate Destination (Data Element #16) • Equipment Type Code (Data Element #17) • Number of House Bills of Lading (Data Element #22) • Split Shipment Indicator (Data Element #29) • Portion of Split Shipment (Data Element #30) • Mexican Pedimento Number (Data Element #32)

    CBP is modifying the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test to change the following data element from mandatory to conditional:

    • Marks and Numbers (Data Element #10)

    The remaining data elements under the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test continue to be mandatory, conditional, or optional as provided in the September 9, 2015 notice. The full list of data elements for all shipments, including empty rail cars, is set forth below. Unless otherwise noted, the data elements are mandatory.

    (1) Mode of Transportation (Rail, containerized or Rail, non-containerized) (optional) (2) Port of Departure from the United States (3) Date of Departure (4) Manifest Number (5) Train Number (6) Rail Car Order (7) Car Locator Message (8) Hazmat Indicator (Yes/No) (9) 6-character Hazmat Code (conditional) (If the hazmat indicator is yes, then UN (for United Nations Number) or NA (North American Number) and the corresponding 4-digit identification number assigned to the hazardous material must be provided.) (10) Marks and Numbers (conditional) (11) SCAC (Standard Carrier Alpha Code) for exporting carrier (12) Shipper name and address (For empty rail cars, the shipper may be the railroad from whom the rail carrier received the empty rail car to transport.) (13) Consignee name and address (For empty rail cars, the consignee may be the railroad to whom the rail carrier is transporting the empty rail car.) (14) Place where the rail carrier takes possession of the cargo shipment or empty rail car (optional) (15) Port of Unlading (16) Country of Ultimate Destination (optional) (17) Equipment Type Code (optional) (18) Container Number(s) (for containerized shipments) or Rail Car Number(s) (for all other shipments) (19) Empty Indicator (Yes/No)

    If the empty indicator is no, then the following data elements must also be provided, unless otherwise noted:

    (20) Bill of Lading Numbers (Master and House) (21) Bill of Lading type (Master, House, Simple or Sub) (22) Number of house bills of lading (optional) (23) Notify Party name and address (conditional) (24) AES Internal Transaction Number or AES Exemption Statement (per shipment) (25) Cargo Description (26) Weight of Cargo (may be expressed in either pounds or kilograms) (27) Quantity of Cargo and Unit of Measure (28) Seal Number (only required if the container was sealed) (29) Split Shipment Indicator (Yes/No) (optional) (30) Portion of split shipment (e.g. 1 of 10, 4 of 10, 5 of 10—Final. etc.) (optional) (31) In-bond number (conditional) (32) Mexican Pedimento Number (only for shipments for export to Mexico) (optional)

    If, after the conclusion of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test, CBP decides to conduct rulemaking to amend the regulations concerning the filing of the manifest for rail cargo, CBP will reevaluate the filing conditions for each data element to determine the feasibility of requiring that data element to be filed electronically in ACE within a specified time before the cargo is loaded on the train.

    Extension of the Test

    To continue further evaluation of the ACE Export Manifest for Rail Cargo Test, CBP is extending the test for an additional year. The expanded and modified test will run until October 9, 2018.

    Applicability of Initial Test Notice

    Unless explicitly changed by this or subsequent notices published in the Federal Register, all other aspects of the initial test announced in the September 9, 2015 notice, including test procedures and conditions, the application process, and the waiver of certain regulatory requirements, remain in effect.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3507), an agency may not conduct, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The collections of information in this NCAP test have been approved by OMB in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned OMB control number 1651-0001.

    Dated: August 8, 2017. Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17076 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-R-2017-N118; FXGO1664091HCC0-FF09D00000-178] Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council; Public Teleconference AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a public teleconference of the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council). The Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that benefit wildlife resources; encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and benefit recreational hunting.

    DATES:

    Meeting: Wednesday August 30, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). For deadlines and directions on registering to participate, submitting written material, and giving an oral presentation, please see Public Input under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joshua Winchell, Council Designated Federal Officer, by U.S. mail at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; by telephone at (703) 358-2639; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, we announce that the Wildlife and Hunting Heritage Conservation Council (Council) will hold a teleconference.

    Background

    Formed in February 2010, the Council provides advice about wildlife and habitat conservation endeavors that:

    1. Benefit wildlife resources;

    2. Encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, states, Native American tribes, and the Federal Government; and

    3. Benefit recreational hunting.

    The Council advises the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, reporting through the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), in consultation with the Director, Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Director, National Park Service (NPS); Chief, Forest Service (USFS); Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); and Administrator, Farm Services Agency (FSA). The Council's duties are strictly advisory and consist of, but are not limited to, providing recommendations for:

    1. Implementing the Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Resource Conservation Plan;

    2. Increasing public awareness of and support for the Wildlife Restoration Program;

    3. Fostering wildlife and habitat conservation and ethics in hunting and shooting sports recreation;

    4. Stimulating sportsmen and women's participation in conservation and management of wildlife and habitat resources through outreach and education;

    5. Fostering communication and coordination among state, tribal, and Federal governments; industry; hunting and shooting sportsmen and women; wildlife and habitat conservation and management organizations; and the public;

    6. Providing appropriate access to Federal lands for recreational shooting and hunting;

    7. Providing recommendations to improve implementation of Federal conservation programs that benefit wildlife, hunting, and outdoor recreation on private lands; and

    8. When requested by the Designated Federal Officer in consultation with the Council Chairperson, performing a variety of assessments or reviews of policies, programs, and efforts through the Council's designated subcommittees or workgroups.

    Background information on the Council is available at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

    Meeting Agenda

    The Council will convene to consider issues including:

    1. Implementing Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3347—Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation;

    2. Status of the Recreation Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan, as directed by Executive Order 13443; and

    3. Other Council business.

    The final agenda will be posted on the internet at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

    Public Input If you wish to: You must contact the Council Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no later than: Listen to the Teleconference August 17, 2017. Submit written information or questions before the teleconference for the Council to consider during the meeting August 17, 2017. Give an oral presentation during the teleconference August 17, 2017. Submitting Written Information or Questions

    Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the public teleconference. Written statements must be received by the date in Public Input so that the information may be made available to the Council for consideration prior to this meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Designated Federal Officer in both of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).

    Giving an Oral Presentation

    Individuals or groups who want to make an oral presentation during the teleconference will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Designated Federal Officer, in writing (preferably via email; see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), to be placed on the public speaker list for this teleconference. Nonregistered public speakers cannot be accommodated during the teleconference. Registered speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, or those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, may submit written statements to the Council Designated Federal Officer up to 30 days subsequent to the teleconference.

    Meeting Minutes

    Summary minutes of the teleconference will be maintained by the Council Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). They will be available for public inspection within 90 days of the teleconference, and will be posted on the Council's Web site at http://www.fws.gov/whhcc.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, please be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Joshua Winchell, Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-16841 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R1-ES-2017-N097; FXES11140100000-178-FF01E00000] Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Olympia Subspecies of the Mazama Pocket Gopher, Thurston County, Washington AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), received an application from Mr. Steven McLain (applicant) for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The applicant requests an ITP that would authorize “take” of the threatened Olympia subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher incidental to otherwise lawful construction of a single-family home in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with measures to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on the covered species. We have also prepared a draft Environmental Action Statement (EAS) for our preliminary determination that the HCP and permit decision may be eligible for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We invite comments from all interested parties regarding the permit application, draft HCP, and the draft EAS.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please submit written comments by September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may view or download copies of the draft HCP and obtain additional information on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/. To request further information or submit written comments, please use one of the following methods, and note that your information request or comments are in reference to “The McLain HCP”:

    Electronic: [email protected]

    U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R1-ES-2017-N097; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 510 Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102; Lacey, Washington 98503.

    In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call 360-753-5823 to make an appointment (necessary for viewing or picking up documents only) during normal business hours at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tim Romanski, Conservation Planning and Hydropower Branch Manager, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 360-753-5823. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Under the ESA, the term “take” means 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(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in our regulations as to carry out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA contains provisions that authorize the Service to issue permits to non-federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species caused by otherwise lawful activities, provided the following criteria are met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking; (3) the applicant will ensure that adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and (5) the applicant will carry out any other measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of the plan. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.

    We received an application from the applicant for an ITP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. The applicant requests an ITP having a 2-year term that would authorize “take” of the threatened Olympia subspecies of the Mazama pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis), hereafter referred to as Olympia pocket gopher, incidental to otherwise lawful construction of one single-family home on land he owns in Thurston County, Washington. The application includes a draft HCP that describes actions the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking on covered species.

    Proposed Action

    The Service proposes to issue the requested 2-year ITP based on the applicant's commitment to implement the draft HCP, if permit issuance criteria are met. Covered activities include construction of the single-family home. The area covered under the draft HCP consists of an approximately one-half acre project development site and an approximately one acre conservation site on land owned by the applicant. Take of the Olympia pocket gopher would occur within the half-acre development site and will be offset by permanently managing an acre of occupied habitat for the covered species on the applicant's land until and unless the take impacts are offset by purchasing equivalent credits from a Service-approved conservation bank for the Olympia pocket gopher.

    National Environmental Policy Act Compliance

    The proposed issuance of an ITP is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Pursuant to NEPA, we prepared an Environmental Action Statement (EAS) to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed Federal action of issuing the requested ITP and implementation of the conservation program under the proposed HCP.

    Based on the EAS, we have preliminarily determined that the applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we determined that the proposed HCP is eligible for “low-effect” status and qualifies for categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by the Department of the Interior NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46). A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitat, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

    Public Comments

    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We specifically request information, views, and suggestions from interested parties regarding our proposed Federal action, including adequacy of the draft HCP pursuant to the requirements for permits at 50 CFR parts 13 and 17 and adequacy of the EAS pursuant to NEPA.

    Public Availability of Comments

    All comments and materials we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information in your comments, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personally identifiable information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personally identifiable information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business hours, at our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, the HCP, and any comments received to determine whether the permit application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the requested permit would comply with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service section 7 consultation on anticipated ITP actions. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether to issue the ITP. If we determine that all requirements are met, we will issue an ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to the applicant for the take of the covered species, incidental to otherwise lawful covered activities. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of this notice.

    Authority

    We provide this notice in accordance with the requirements of section 10 of the ESA and NEPA and their implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.32 and 40 CFR 1506.6, respectively).

    Dated: June 20, 2017. Theresa E. Rabot, Deputy Regional Director, Pacific Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17082 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1066] Certain Recombinant Factor IX Products; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 7, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Bioverativ Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts; Bioverativ Therapeutics Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts; and Bioverativ U.S. LLC of Waltham, Massachusetts. A supplement to the complaint was filed on July 14, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain recombinant Factor IX products by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,670,475 (“the '475 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,623,091 (“the '091 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,629,903 (“the '903 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 8, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain recombinant Factor IX products by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4-19, 24, 25, 29, and 34 of the '475 patent; claims 1-7, 11-16, 18, 19, 21, and 23-27 of the '091 patent; and claims 1-10, 13-15, and 17-28 of the '903 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are: Bioverativ Inc., 225 Second Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451. Bioverativ Therapeutics Inc., 225 Second Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451. Bioverativ U.S. LLC, 225 Second Avenue, Waltham, MA 02451.

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: CSL Behring LLC, 1020 First Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406. CSL Behring GmbH, Emil-von-Behring-Strasse 76, Marburg, Hessen 35041 Germany. CSL Behring Recombinant Facility AG, Wankdorfstrasse 10, Bern, Bern 3014 Switzerland.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 8, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17058 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1065] Certain Mobile Electronic Devices and Radio Frequency and Processing Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 7, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Qualcomm Incorporated of San Diego, California. A supplement was filed on July 7, 2017. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936 (“the '936 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558 (“the '558 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658 (“the '658 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949 (“the '949 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490 (“the '490 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 (“the '675 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 8, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain mobile electronic devices and radio frequency and processing components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-27, 29, 38, 49, 55-60, 67, and 68 of the '936 patent; claims 1 and 6-20 of the '558 patent; claims 9, 10, 12, 14, and 20-22 of the '658 patent; claims 1-8, 10-14, 16, 20, and 22 of the '949 patent; claims 1-6, 8, 10, 16, 17, and 31 of the '490 patent; and claims 1-3 and 7-14 of the '675 patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding Administrative Law Judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Qualcomm Incorporated, 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA 92121.

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 8, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17057 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. TA-201-75] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) Determination Not To Close Any Portion of the Commission's Hearing on Injury Issues AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Commission determination not to close any part of the hearing on injury issues in the above-captioned investigation to the public.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission has determined to deny a request to conduct a portion of its hearing on injury issues scheduled for August 15, 2017 in camera.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Jane Alves, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-708-2969. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 4, 2017, the Solar Energy Industries Association and its member company SunPower Inc. (collectively SEIA) requested in the above-captioned investigation that the Commission conduct in camera a portion of its hearing on injury issues scheduled for August 15, 2017. The Commission believes it should conduct its business in public in all but the most unusual circumstances. The Commission has determined that, in light of the nature of this investigation and the ample opportunity given parties to present written arguments, including those relying on confidential information, it will be able to assess adequately all arguments raised by SEIA without resorting to the extraordinary measure of an in camera hearing. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that the public interest would be best served by a hearing that is entirely open to the public. See 19 CFR 201.36(c)(1).

    Authority:

    This notice is provided pursuant to 19 CFR 201.35(b).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 9, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17081 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Justice Statistics [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 13, 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 9, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17097 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1122-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Approval of a New Collection AGENCY:

    Office on Violence Against Women, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 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 13, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Written comments and/or suggestion regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to Cathy Poston, Office on Violence Against Women, at 202-514-5430 or [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:

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

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Approval of a new collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Semi-annual progress report for the Grants to Tribal Governments to Exercise Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction Program (Tribal Jurisdiction Program).

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: 1122-XXXX. U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: The affected public includes the estimated 20 grantees under the Tribal Jurisdiction Program, a new grant program authorized in the Violence Against Women reauthorization Act of 2013. The Tribal Jurisdiction Program is designed to assist Indian tribes in exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction (SDVCJ). Through this grant program, Indian tribes will receive support and technical assistance for planning, developing and implementing changes in their criminal justice systems necessary to exercise SDVCJ. The program encourages collaborations among tribal leadership, tribal courts, tribal prosecutors, tribal attorneys, tribal defenders, law enforcement, probation, service providers, and other partners to ensure that non-Indians who commit crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders are held accountable. The Tribal Jurisdiction Program encourages the coordinated involvement of the entire tribal criminal justice system and victim service providers to incorporate systemic change that ensures victim safety and offender accountability.

    (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 it will take the 20 respondents (Tribal Jurisdiction Program grantees) approximately one hour to complete a semi-annual progress report. The semi-annual progress report is divided into sections that pertain to the different types of activities that grantees may engage in (i.e. victim services, training, prosecutions, law enforcement activities) and grantees will be expected to provide information only in connection with those activities supported by OVW funding.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total annual hour burden to complete the annual progress report is 40 hours.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E, 405B, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: August 9, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17078 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FX-P
    OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements AGENCY:

    Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the availability of the 2017 OMB Audit Requirements, Appendix XI—Compliance Supplement (2017 Supplement). This Notice also offers interested parties an opportunity to comment on the 2017 Supplement.

    DATES:

    The 2017 Supplement supersedes the 2016 Supplement and will apply to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 2016. All comments on the 2017 Supplement must be in writing and received by October 31, 2017. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable. OMB received no comments on the 2016 Supplement.

    Due to potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot guarantee that comments mailed will be received before the comment closing date.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic mail comments may be submitted to: [email protected] Please include “2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F—Audit Requirements, Appendix XI—Compliance Supplement—2017” in the subject line and the full body of your comments in the text of the electronic message and as an attachment. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address in the text of the message. Comments may also be submitted via facsimile at 202-395-3952.

    Comments may be mailed to Gilbert Tran, Office of Federal Financial Management, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Comments may also be sent through http://www.regulations.gov—a Federal E-Government Web site that allows the public to find, review, and submit comments on documents that agencies have published in the Federal Register and that are open for comment. Simply type “2 CFR part 200 Subpart F—Audit Requirements, Appendix XI- Compliance Supplement—2017” (in quotes) in the Comment or Submission search box, click Go, and follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments received through the Web site by the date specified above will be included as part of the official record.

    The 2017 Supplement is available online on the OMB home page at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/offices/offm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Recipients and auditors should contact their cognizant or oversight agency for audit, or Federal awarding agency, as appropriate under the circumstances. The Federal agency contacts are listed in Appendix III of the Supplement. Subrecipients should contact their pass- through entity. Federal agencies should contact Gilbert Tran, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial Management, at (202) 395-3052.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 2017 Supplement adds four new programs, including one added to an existing cluster; adds two new clusters; and, deletes three programs (see listing below). The 2017 Supplement is also updated to reflect program changes and technical corrections. Part 3 of the 2017 Supplement—Compliance Requirements continues to be divided into two subparts. Subpart 3.1 is applicable to awards issued prior to December 26, 2014 and Subpart 3.2 is applicable to awards issued on or after December 26, 2014.

    The added programs/clusters are:

    • CFDA 20.224—Federal Lands Access Program, add to the existing Highway Planning and Construction cluster • CFDA 87.051—Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Comprehensive Plan Component Program • CFDA 87.052—Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Spill Impact Program • CFDA 93.870—Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Grant Program to form a new cluster with CFDA 93.505, Affordable Care Act—Maternal, Infant, And Early Childhood Home Visiting Program • The 477 cluster, a cross-agency cluster, that applies to the following Department of Interior, Department of Labor, and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs as indicated therein: ○ CFDA 15.025—Services to Indian Children, Elderly and Families ○ CFDA 15.026—Indian Adult Education ○ CFDA 15.113—Indian Social Services—Welfare Assistance ○ CFDA 15.114—Indian Education-Higher Education Grant ○ CFDA 15.130—Indian Education-Assistance to Schools ○ CFDA 17.265—Native American Employment and Training ○ CFDA 93.558—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ○ CFDA 93.569—Community Services Block Grant ○ CFDA 93.575—Child Care and Development Block Grant ○ CFDA 93.594—Tribal Work Grants—Native Employment Works ○ CFDA 93.596—Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund.

    The deleted programs are:

    • CFDA 11.558—State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program.

    • CFDA 93.889—Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program.

    • CFDA 10.781—Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities—(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), resulting in the elimination of a cluster.

    Highlights of the changes in the Appendices of the Supplement include the following:

    • Appendix III provides the updated list of the National Single Audit Coordinators and Single Audit Key Management Liaisons, along with their distinct roles for answering public inquiries regarding Single Audit.

    • Appendix V lists the changes to the 2017 Supplement.

    • Appendix VII adds information related to treatment of an existing cluster if a new program is added to the cluster.

    Due to its length, the 2017 Supplement is not included in this Notice.

    Mark Reger, Deputy Controller.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17054 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0203] Information Collection: NRC Form 64, “Travel Voucher” (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, “Travel Voucher” (Part 2); and NRC Form 64B, “Optional Travel Voucher” (Part 2) AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 64, “Travel Voucher” (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, “Travel Voucher” (Part 2); and NRC Form 64B, “Optional Travel Voucher” (Part 2).”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by September 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0192), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0203 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0203.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing ADAMS Accession ML17179A612.

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

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0203 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, NRC Form 64, “Travel Voucher” (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, “Travel Voucher” (Part 2); and NRC Form 64B, “Optional Travel Voucher” (Part 2). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on March 31, 2017; 82 FR16074.

    1. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 64, “Travel Voucher” (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, “Travel Voucher” (Part 2); and NRC Form 64B, “Optional Travel Voucher” (Part 2).

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0192.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number if applicable: NRC Forms 64, 64A and 64B.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: On occasion.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Contractors, consultants and invited

    NRC travelers who travel in the course of conducting business for the NRC.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 100.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 100.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 100 (1 hour per form).

    10. Abstract: Consultants, contractors, and those invited by the NRC to travel (e.g., prospective employees) must file travel vouchers and trip reports in order to be reimbursed for their travel expenses. The information collected includes the name, address, social security number, and the amount to be reimbursed. Travel expenses that are reimbursed are confined to those expenses essential to the transaction of official business for an approved trip.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dave Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17124 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-1151; License No. SNM-1107; EA-16-173; NRC-2017-0176] Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Confirmatory order; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a confirmatory order (Order) to Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, (the licensee), confirming the agreement reached in an Alternative Dispute Resolution mediation session held on May 19, 2017, and follow-up discussions held between May 19, 2017, and August 3, 2017. This Order will ensure the licensee restores compliance with NRC's regulations.

    DATES:

    The Order was issued on August 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0176 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0176. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

    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:

    Scott Sparks, Region II, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257; telephone: 404-997-4422; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The text of the Order is attached.

    Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this 9th day of August, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Catherine Haney, Regional Administrator.
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 70-1151; License No. SNM-1107; EA-16-173; NRC-2017-0176] In the Matter of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC CONFIRMATORY ORDER (EFFECTIVE UPON ISSUANCE) I

    Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse, or the licensee) is the holder of NRC License No. SNM-1107, issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 70 on September 30, 2007. The license authorizes the operation of the Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility (CFFF) in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site in Hopkins, South Carolina.

    This Confirmatory Order (CO) is the result of an agreement reached during an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mediation session conducted on May 19, 2017, and follow-up discussions held between May 19, 2017, and August 3, 2017.

    II

    On May 28, 2016, as part of the licensee's routine maintenance activities, the licensee started the S-1030 scrubber inspection and cleanout activities. The licensee completed the S-1030 scrubber cleanout activities on June 1, 2016, removing a total of 197 kilograms (kg) of material. The scrubber was subsequently restarted following the maintenance outage on June 2, 2016. On July 13, 2016, the preliminary results of samples taken of the material removed from the S-1030 scrubber indicated a 40-50% concentration of uranium (U) enriched to less than 5%. This equates to approximately 100 kg of U in the scrubber, exceeding the mass limit in the Criticality Safety Evaluation (CSE) of 29 kg U.

    The scrubber was shut down on July 14, 2016, when the determination was made by the licensee that the mass limit in the CSE had been exceeded. The licensee reported this event to the NRC as a 24-hour event due to a high consequence event being “unlikely” (EN 52090). On July 31, 2016, the event report was updated to a one hour report per 10 CFR 70 Appendix A (a)(4) because no items relied upon for safety (IROFS) remained available and reliable to perform their function.

    On August 11, 2016, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) to Westinghouse (ML16224B082). The purpose of the CAL was to confirm the commitments made by Westinghouse regarding additional actions Westinghouse will take in response to the U buildup reported to the NRC in July 2016. These actions were intended to ensure that the causes of the U buildup have been adequately identified and evaluated and that appropriate corrective actions have been implemented to improve the performance of the Nuclear Criticality Safety (NCS) program.

    On September 27, 2016, the NRC completed an Augmented Inspection at the Westinghouse facility, the details of which are documented in NRC Inspection Report 70-1151/2016-007 (ML16301A001).

    A follow-up NRC inspection (70-1151/2017-007) was also conducted, the results of which were issued on February 27, 2017 (ML17058A448). This inspection report identified the following four Apparent Violations (AVs), all of which were considered for escalated enforcement in accordance with the NRC's Enforcement Policy:

    1. An AV was identified for failure to ensure criticality accident sequences remain highly unlikely, as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 10 CFR 70.61(b).

    2. An AV was identified for failure to assure that under normal and credible abnormal conditions, all nuclear processes were subcritical including use of an approved margin of subcriticality, as required by 10 CFR 70.61(d).

    3. An AV was identified for failure to establish adequate management measures to ensure that items relied on for safety (IROFS) perform their function when needed, as required by 10 CFR 70.62(d).

    4. An AV was identified for failure to make a one hour report, as required by Appendix A (a)(4) of 10 CFR part 70.

    In response to the NRC's inspection report of February 27, 2017, Westinghouse advised the NRC of its desire to participate in the Agency's ADR program to resolve the enforcement aspects of this matter.

    III

    On May 19, 2017, the NRC and Westinghouse met in an ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution. Additional discussions were held between the NRC and Westinghouse between May 19, 2017, and August 3, 2017, to resolve the enforcement aspects of this matter. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator with no decision-making authority assists the parties in reaching an agreement or resolving any differences regarding their dispute. This CO is issued pursuant to the agreement reached during the ADR process. The elements of the agreement consist of the following:

    1. Westinghouse acknowledges that four violations occurred, as stated in NRC Inspection Report 70-1151/2017-007.

    2. Based on ADR, the parties agreed that the safety significance of violations described in Section II above is characterized as escalated enforcement as described in the NRC Enforcement Policy.

    3. Approximately two years (+/− 6 months) after issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall conduct an additional Nuclear Safety Culture (NSC) survey by the Westinghouse corporate nuclear safety culture organization or an experienced independent third party, consistent with the depth and scope of the NSC survey completed under the CAL dated August 11, 2016. Identified deficiencies shall be entered into the corrective action program (CAP) for tracking corrective actions to completion.

    4. Westinghouse shall implement improvements to reduce uranium carryover from the Calciner scrubbers, and implement additional design changes to reduce U carryover from the Blue M oven filtration system. Specifically:

    (1) For the calciner scrubbers, within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, an engineering evaluation of the calciner and calciner off-gas scrubber design and operation shall be completed to determine methods to reduce uranium carry-over into the S-1030 scrubber.

    (2) For the Blue M oven, within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, an engineering evaluation of the Conversion Scrap Cage Blue M oven shall be completed to determine methods to improve the functionality of the Blue M oven in a wet environment and improve accessibility for inspection and maintenance activities.

    (3) Within three (3) years of issuance of the CO, improvements based on the engineering evaluations described above shall be implemented.

    5. In response to the May 2016 event, Westinghouse implemented several modifications to the S-1030 scrubber system, as part of its overall corrective actions to preclude recurrence and enhance performance. These modifications were considered by the NRC, under the CAL, in support of a safety basis to authorize restart of conversion process equipment and the S-1030 scrubber system, as documented in the NRC's letter to Westinghouse dated October 20, 2016 (ML16294A296). The modifications included but were not limited to:

    (1) The plenums for the scrap cage Blue M oven hoods were equipped with a filter to capture at least 95% of the mass entrained in the air stream based on particle size distribution and the manufacturer's published efficiency data.

    (2) Packing baskets were implemented to permit complete removal and inspection of the packed media and to maintain clearance between the packed media and the scrubber floor.

    (3) A feed and bleed system for the scrubber recirculating liquid was maintained at a minimum output flow of 0.5 gallons per minute. If feed and bleed is not available, a controlled shutdown of the scrubber would be initiated in accordance with plant procedures.

    (4) The scrubber was opened to remove the packed media baskets, to clean and inspect the inlet transition and scrubber body on a quarterly basis.

    (5) Weekly visual inspections of the scrubber inlet transition were to be conducted.

    6. Within two (2) years of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement additional methods to monitor system parameters that are early indicators of an abnormal accumulation in the S-1030 scrubber from a process upset that could challenge the accumulation rate and/or criticality safety mass limits. The methods will provide timely indications to enable the operators to take appropriate actions in accordance with approved procedures.

    7. A member of senior Westinghouse leadership shall present training on lessons learned from the scrubber event at an industry forum, including NSC and criticality safety standards aspects.

    This item was completed on June 14, 2017, when the site vice president of CFFF presented training on lessons learned from the scrubber event at Fuel Cycle Information Exchange (an industry-wide forum), including NSC and criticality safety standards aspects.

    8. Within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement a criticality safety basis/IROFS database to help maintain the proper flow down of the safety basis into implementing documents.

    9. Within six (6) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop a method to reinforce positive NSC leadership behavior and monitor for effectiveness in the NSC monitoring panel. Westinghouse shall implement such method for three years, after which it may evaluate the need to continue this item.

    10. Within three (3) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement a new metric or periodic report that creates an aggregate picture of the health of the criticality safety program. This shall include items such as IROFS challenges, trends, audit and inspection finding status, violations, and health of management measures and be made available for inspection. Identified deficiencies shall be evaluated in accordance with the CAP.

    11. Within nine (9) months, Westinghouse shall implement risk-informed standards for the preparation of procedures and data sheets informed by appropriate guidance in INPO 11-003, “Guideline for Excellence in Procedure and Work Instruction Use and Adherence.” This will consist of issuance of a procedure writers' guide, procedure format template, and a procedure use and adherence standard.

    12. The NRC agrees that issuance of this CO serves to close the CAL issued to Westinghouse on August 11, 2016. NRC acknowledges that Westinghouse has taken extensive actions to address items in the CAL including completing a root cause analysis (RCA), completing a review of criticality safety evaluations, performing inspections to validate system design and operating parameters, installing physical modifications to support the safety basis to improve safety performance, conducting an independent third party nuclear safety culture assessment, and completing several corrective actions designed to preclude recurrence.

    NRC also acknowledges that Westinghouse has taken some actions to close post-restart CAL items 1, 3, and 5, but are not yet complete. Therefore, post-restart CAL items 1, 3, and 5, as modified below, are transferred to this CO. Upon completion of these items, Westinghouse will notify the NRC Region II Administrator.

    a. CAL Item 1—Westinghouse shall implement the remaining corrective actions to prevent recurrence identified in their RCA.

    b. CAL Item 3—Westinghouse shall conduct effectiveness reviews of corrective actions to prevent recurrence specified in their RCA.

    c. CAL Item 5—Westinghouse shall evaluate the results of the independent third party nuclear safety culture assessment, and any identified deficiencies will be entered into the CAP to track to completion.

    The NRC concludes that CAL post-restart items 2 and 4 are closed because these items will be sampled as part of the NRC's inspection program.

    The NRC concludes that CAL post-restart item 6 is closed because of the extensive corrective actions completed by Westinghouse to date.

    13. Within three (3) months of completion of the terms of the CO, Westinghouse will provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the CO has been satisfied.

    14. In consideration of the commitments delineated herein, the NRC agrees to refrain from proposing a civil penalty or issuing a Notice of Violation for all four AVs identified in NRC Inspection Report 70-1151/2017-007 (EA-16-173).

    15. The NRC and Westinghouse agree that the above elements will be incorporated into a CO.

    16. This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of Westinghouse.

    On August 8, 2017, Westinghouse consented to issuance of this CO with the commitments, as described in Section V below. Westinghouse further agreed that this CO is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right to a hearing.

    IV

    Because Westinghouse has taken corrective actions to address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III above, and has agreed to take additional corrective actions as set forth in Section V below, the NRC has concluded that its concerns can be resolved through issuance of this CO.

    I find that Westinghouse's commitments as set forth in Section V are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these commitments, the public health and safety are reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined that public health and safety require that Westinghouse's commitments be confirmed by this CO. Based on the above and Westinghouse's consent, this CO is effective upon issuance.

    V

    Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 104b., 161b., 161i., 161o., 182, and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 70, it is hereby ordered, that License No. SNM-1107 is modified as follows:

    1. In recognition of the corrective actions taken in response to the four violations, as discussed at the ADR, and in response to the Confirmatory Action Letter dated August 11, 2016 (ML16224B082), Westinghouse agrees to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a copy to the Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, within 30 days of the date of the CO. This reply should include for each of the four violations: (1) The reason for the violation; (2) the corrective steps that have been taken to restore compliance; and (3) additional corrective actions and enhancements taken to preclude repetition.

    2. Approximately two years (+/− 6 months) after issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall conduct an additional NSC survey by the Westinghouse corporate nuclear safety culture organization or an experienced independent third party, consistent with the depth and scope of the NSC survey completed under the CAL dated August 11, 2016. Identified deficiencies shall be entered into the CAP for tracking corrective actions to completion.

    3. Westinghouse shall implement improvements to reduce uranium carryover from the Calciner scrubbers, and implement additional design changes to reduce U carryover from the Blue M oven filtration system. Specifically:

    (1) For the calciner scrubbers, within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, an engineering evaluation of the calciner and calciner off-gas scrubber design and operation shall be completed to determine methods to reduce uranium carry-over into the S-1030 scrubber.

    (2) For the Blue M oven, within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, an engineering evaluation of the Conversion Scrap Cage Blue M oven shall be completed to determine methods to improve the functionality of the Blue M oven in a wet environment and improve accessibility for inspection and maintenance activities.

    (3) Within three (3) years of issuance of the CO, improvements based on the engineering evaluations described above shall be implemented.

    4. Westinghouse shall notify the NRC within fifteen (15) working days prior to implementing changes to the modifications to the S-1030 scrubber system, as discussed below. This requirement ends once the Regional Administrator determines that the CO has been satisfied. These modifications were incorporated as corrective actions prior to the October 20, 2016, system restart authorization (ML16294A296) and support, in part, the safety basis for the S-1030 scrubber. Specifically, these modifications are:

    (1) The plenums for the scrap cage Blue M oven hoods shall be equipped with a filter to capture at least 95% of the mass entrained in the air stream based on particle size distribution and the manufacturer's published efficiency data.

    (2) Packing baskets were implemented to permit complete removal and inspection of the packed media and to maintain clearance between the packed media and the scrubber floor.

    (3) A feed and bleed system for the scrubber recirculating liquid shall be maintained at a minimum output flow of 0.5 gallons per minute. If feed and bleed is not available, a controlled shutdown of the scrubber shall be initiated in accordance with plant procedures.

    (4) The scrubber shall be opened to remove the packed media baskets, to clean and inspect the inlet transition and scrubber body on a quarterly basis.

    (5) Weekly visual inspections of the scrubber inlet transition shall be conducted.

    5. Within two (2) years of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement additional methods to monitor system parameters that are early indicators of an abnormal accumulation in the S-1030 scrubber from a process upset that could challenge the accumulation rate and/or criticality safety mass limits. The methods will provide timely indications to enable the operators to take appropriate actions in accordance with approved procedures.

    6. Within eighteen (18) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement a criticality safety basis/IROFS database to maintain the proper flow down of the safety basis into implementing documents.

    7. Within six (6) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop a method to reinforce positive NSC leadership behavior and monitor for effectiveness in the NSC monitoring panel. Westinghouse shall implement such method for three (3) years, after which it may evaluate the need to continue this item.

    8. Within three (3) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall develop and implement a new metric or periodic report that creates an aggregate picture of the health of the criticality safety program. This shall include items such as IROFS challenges, trends, audit and inspection finding status, violations, and health of management measures and be made available for inspection. Identified deficiencies shall be evaluated in accordance with the CAP.

    9. Within nine (9) months of issuance of the CO, Westinghouse shall implement risk-informed standards for the preparation of procedures and data sheets informed by appropriate guidance in INPO 11-003, “Guideline for Excellence in Procedure and Work Instruction Use and Adherence.” This shall consist of issuance of a procedure writers' guide, procedure format template, and a procedure use and adherence standard.

    10. The NRC agrees that issuance of this CO serves to close the CAL issued to Westinghouse on August 11, 2016. NRC acknowledges that Westinghouse has taken extensive actions to address items in the CAL including completing an RCA, completing a review of criticality safety evaluations, performing inspections to validate system design and operating parameters, installing physical modifications to support the safety basis to improve safety performance, conducting an independent third party nuclear safety culture assessment, and completing several corrective actions designed to preclude recurrence.

    The NRC also acknowledges that Westinghouse has taken some actions to close post-restart CAL items 1, 3, and 5, but are not yet complete. Therefore, post-restart CAL items 1, 3, and 5, as modified below, are transferred to this CO. Upon completion of these items, Westinghouse will notify the NRC Region II Administrator.

    a. CAL Item 1—Westinghouse shall implement the remaining corrective actions to prevent recurrence identified in their RCA.

    b. CAL Item 3—Westinghouse shall conduct effectiveness reviews of corrective actions to prevent recurrence specified in their RCA.

    c. CAL Item 5—Westinghouse shall evaluate the results of the independent third party nuclear safety culture assessment, and any identified deficiencies will be entered into the CAP to track to completion.

    This CO supersedes the CAL issued to Westinghouse on August 11, 2016. Post -restart CAL items 2 and 4 will be sampled as part of the NRC's inspection program.

    Post-restart CAL item 6 is closed because of the extensive corrective actions completed by Westinghouse to date.

    11. Within three (3) months of completing implementation of the terms of the CO, Westinghouse will provide the NRC with a letter discussing its basis for concluding that the CO has been satisfied.

    This agreement is binding upon successors and assigns of Westinghouse.

    Unless otherwise specified, all dates are from the date of issuance of the CO.

    The Regional Administrator, NRC Region II, may relax or rescind, in writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Westinghouse of good cause.

    VI

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR 2.309, any person adversely affected by this CO, other than Westinghouse, may request a hearing within 30 calendar days of the date of issuance of this CO. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension.

    All documents filed in the NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing, a petition for leave to intervene, any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities participating under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139, August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit a request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene through the EIE System. Submissions should be in Portable Document Format (PDF) in accordance with NRC guidance available on the NRC public Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the documents are submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the documents on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before a hearing request/petition to intervene is filed so that they can obtain access to the document via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    If a person (other than Westinghouse) requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this CO and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).

    If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this CO should be sustained.

    In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be final 30 days from the date of this CO without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received.

    Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this 9th day of August, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Catherine Haney, Regional Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17101 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-458; NRC-2017-0141] Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station, Unit 1 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    License renewal application; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering an application for the renewal of operating license NPF-47, which authorizes Entergy Operations, Inc., (the applicant), to operate River Bend Station, Unit 1 (RBS). The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate RBS for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current license. The current operating license for RBS expires at midnight on August 29, 2025.

    DATES:

    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by October 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0141. 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 License Renewal Application is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17153A282.

    • 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:

    Emmanuel Sayoc, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction

    The NRC received a license renewal application (LRA) from Entergy Operations, Inc., dated May 25, 2017, requesting renewal of operating license No. NPF-47, which authorizes Entergy Operations, Inc., to operate RBS at 3091 megawatts thermal. The RBS is a boiling-water reactor designed by General Electric and is located in St. Francisville, Louisiana. Entergy Operations, Inc., submitted the application, pursuant to part 54 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). A notice of receipt of the LRA was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 2017 (82 FR 29344).

    The NRC's staff has determined that Entergy Operations, Inc. has submitted sufficient information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, 51.45, and 51.53(c), to enable the staff to undertake a review of the application, and that the application is, therefore, acceptable for docketing. The current docket No., 50-458, for operating license No. NPF-47, will be retained. The determination to accept the LRA for docketing does not constitute a determination that a renewed license should be issued, and does not preclude the NRC staff from requesting additional information as the review proceeds.

    Before issuance of the requested renewed license, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC may issue a renewed license on the basis of its review if it finds that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to: (1) Managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review; and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB) and that any changes made to the plant's CLB will comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.

    Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement as a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” dated June 2013. In considering the LRA, the Commission must find that the applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied, and that matters raised under 10 CFR 2.335 have been addressed. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold public scoping meetings. Detailed information regarding the environmental scoping meetings will be the subject of a separate Federal Register notice.

    II. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by October 13, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submission (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    III. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to request (1) a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a request or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the Nuclear Reactors icon at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal.html on the NRC's Web site. Copies of the application to renew the operating license for RBS are available for public inspection at the NRC's PDR, and at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications.html, the NRC's Web site while the application is under review.

    The NRC staff has verified that a copy of the license renewal application is also available to local residents near the site at the St. Charles Parish Library—East Regional Library, 160 W. Campus Drive, Destrehan, Louisiana 70047.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of August, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Sheldon Stuchell, Chief, Projects Management and Guidance Branch, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17125 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81348; File No. SR-BX-2017-038] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; 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 8, 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 3, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” 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://nasdaqbx.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. 34-74916 (May 8, 2015); 80 FR 27733 (May 14, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-028) (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 BX 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 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 Commentary .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 Chapter V, Section 6(e)(4) of the Rules, 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 BX Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 6(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 Chapter V, Section 6(e) of the Rules, 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 Commentary .04 to Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules 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 Commentary .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.12

    12See, e.g., BX Rules, Chapter XIV, Sec. 13, 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 Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and Commentary .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 Chapter V, Section 6(b)(2) of the Rules.

    • 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 Chapter V, Section 6(b)(2) of the Rules. 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 Chapter V, Section 6(b)(2) of the Rules.

    • 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 Chapter V, Section 6

    Commentary .03 to Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules describes the Exchange's authority to declare trading halts in one or more options traded on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to modify this provision to provide that, with respect to equity options, the Exchange 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. 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

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    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.

    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 Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules, 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 Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules. 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 Commentary .04 to Chapter V, Section 6 of the Rules 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.

    Finally, with respect to the proposed modification to Commentary .03 to Chapter V, Section 6, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 23 because it specifically provides for nullification where a trading halt exists with respect to an underlying security across the industry (i.e., a regulatory halt) as distinguished 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 a similar provision already exists in the rules of certain other options exchanges, and thus, has been found to be consistent with the Act.

    23Id.

    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 24 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.

    24 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 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 25 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 26 thereunder.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    26 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-BX-2017-038 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-BX-2017-038. 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-BX-2017-038, and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.27

    27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17053 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81347; File No. SR-ICC-2017-011] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework and the ICC Stress Testing Framework August 8, 2017. I. Introduction

    On June 28, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC” or “ICE Clear Credit”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2017-011) to revise the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework and the ICC Stress Testing Framework. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on July 12, 2017.3 The Commission did not receive comments regarding the proposed changes. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Exchange Act Release No. 34-81132 (July 12, 2017), 82 FR 32895 (July 18, 2017) (SR-ICC-2017-011) (“Notice”).

    II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    ICC stated that the proposed revisions to its Liquidity Risk Management Framework and Stress Testing Framework are for the purpose of revising its liquidity monitoring program to enhance compliance with U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) regulations, including Regulations 39.11, 39.33, and 39.36.4 ICC represented that the proposed revisions will also facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions for which it is responsible. These revisions would not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules (“Rules”).

    4 17 CFR 39.11; 17 CFR 39.33; 17 CFR 39.36.

    A. Liquidity Risk Management Framework

    ICC proposed to reorganize the format of the Liquidity Risk Management Framework to consist of three elements: Liquidity Risk Management Model; Measurement and Monitoring; and Governance. The Regulatory Requirements element, previously included as an element of the framework, would be deleted; however, the regulatory requirements applicable to liquidity risk management would still be referenced in the framework.

    1. Liquidity Risk Management Model

    ICC proposed to enhance the description of several components of its Liquidity Risk Management Model. As revised, the Liquidity Risk Management Model now includes, but is not limited to, the following components: Currency-Specific Risk Requirements; Acceptable Collateral; Liquidity Requirements; Collateral Valuation Methodology; Investment Strategy; Clearing Participant (“CP”) Deposits as a Liquidity Pool, Liquidity Facilities (including committed repo facilities and committed foreign exchange (“FX”) facilities); and Liquidity Waterfall.

    For the Currency-Specific Risk Requirements component, ICC proposed to add language to cross reference ICC's current policy of maintaining cash and collateral assets posted by CPs (on behalf of themselves and/or their clients) to meet currency-specific Initial Margin (“IM”) and Guaranty Fund (“GF”) requirements, to ensure ICC has sufficient total resources in the required currencies of denomination.

    With respect to the Liquidity Requirements component,5 ICC proposed to add a cross reference to ICC's requirement that each CP contribute to the GF a minimum of 20 million wholly in U.S. Dollars (“USD”), which is not a change but rather a restatement of ICC's current rules.6 Further, ICC proposed revisions to extend ICC's margin risk horizon up to 6-days in order to account for the risk associated with clearing Asia Pacific products. This change would apply throughout the framework.

    5 The Liquidity Requirements component also reflects the changes to ICC's liquidity thresholds for Euro (“EUR”) denominated products approved by the Commission in rule filing ICC-2017-002. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-80324 (Mar. 28, 2017), 82 FR 16244 (Apr. 3, 2017).

    6See Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules.

    With respect to the Liquidity Facilities component, ICC proposed revisions to add reference to its committed repurchase facility, consisting of committed repo lines from multiple financial institutions (as opposed to committed repurchase agreements as before), and its recently instituted committed FX facilities for converting USD cash to EUR cash. ICC also proposed removing reference to FX Swaps and Immediate FX Spot Transactions because these arrangements are not committed and therefore are not “qualifying liquidity resources” under CFTC Regulation 39.33, according to ICC.7 ICC also proposed removing reference to the Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. committed line of credit because ICC no longer participates in the arrangement.

    7 17 CFR 39.33.

    In the Liquidity Waterfall component, ICC proposed revisions to its definition of Available Liquidity Resources (“ALR”) to note that ALR consists of the available deposits currently in cash of the required currency of denomination and the cash equivalent of the available deposits in collateral types that ICC can convert to cash, in the required currency of denomination, using all sources of liquidity available to it. For reference, the Liquidity Waterfall classifies ALR on any given day into four levels. Level One includes the House IM and GF cash deposits of the defaulting CP. Level Two includes GF cash deposits of ICC and non-defaulting CPs. Level Three includes House IM cash deposits of the non-defaulting CPs. Level Four includes committed repo facilities and FX facilities, as described above in the changes to the Liquidity Facilities component.

    A few of the Liquidity Risk Management Model components would remain the same or substantially the same. The Acceptable Collateral component would remain the same and will note that CPs may post IM and GF deposits that meet ICC's acceptable collateral criteria as described in ICC's Treasury Operations Policies and Procedures and Schedule 401 of the ICC Rules. The Investment Strategy component would remain substantially the same and was proposed to be revised to note that, when beneficial, ICC diversifies its cash investments across multiple depository institutions to reduce its liquidity exposure to any single depository. The CP Deposits as a Liquidity Pool and Collateral Valuation Methodology components also would remain substantially the same.

    2. Measurement and Monitoring

    With respect to the Measurement and Monitoring element of the Liquidity Risk Management Framework, ICC proposed changes to the Methodology section to change the calculation for ALR. In response to CFTC feedback to ensure consistency with CFTC Regulation 39.33,8 ICC proposed replacing the estimation of minimum ALR based on risk requirements with the observation of cash and collateral on deposit (excluding cash that will be unavailable by the applicable ICC Payout Deadline because it has been invested by ICC). Accordingly, ICC proposed removing the section from the Liquidity Risk Management Framework which described the process for computing the estimation of minimum ALR. In addition, ICC proposed removing other references throughout the framework related to the estimation of minimum ALR. Thus, under its revised approach, ICC proposed executing stress test analysis by using the amount of liquid assets currently on deposit.

    8 17 CFR 39.33.

    ICC proposed additional changes to the Methodology section. Among other things, the proposed revisions clarify that ICC's measurement and monitoring methodology assesses the adequacy of ICC's established liquidity resources in response to historically observed and hypothetically created (forward looking) scenarios with risk horizons up to and including 6-days. The analyzed scenarios feature assumptions that directly impact the ability of ICC to meet its payment obligations. Based on available IM and GF collateral on deposit on the day of the considered default(s), the analysis determines currency-specific ALR by liquidity waterfall level, and compares these ALRs to the currency-specific Liquidity Obligations resulting from the analyzed scenarios on each day of the considered time horizon. According to ICC, to be conservative, the analysis assumes no client-related ALR and that only the day-1 ALR are available throughout the considered time horizon (i.e., the analysis does not consider ICC's ability during the considered time horizon to liquefy non-cash collateral on deposit or transform the currency of cash on deposit).

    In addition, ICC proposed changes to the Historical Analysis section of the Measurement and Monitoring element of the Liquidity Risk Management Framework. ICC proposed adding language to note that, as part of its historical liquidity analysis, ICC analyzes historical data sets to assess the level of liquidity coverage achieved for each currency. Under the revised framework, ICC would continue to conduct a historical liquidity analysis on both an individual affiliate group (“AG”) basis and a cover-2 basis.

    ICC also proposed the use of the Basel Traffic Light System 9 to determine if the minimum cash component of its risk requirements truly covers historically observed 1-day liquidity obligations with a 99% level of confidence. ICC's risk requirements are designed to meet at least a 99% N-day VaR equivalent level of coverage. CPs must meet their IM and GF requirements with a minimum cash component equivalent to the 1-day portion of the N-day requirement, computed using the square-root-of-time approach.10

    9See Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“BCBS”), Supervisory Framework for the use of “Backtesting” in Conjunction with the Internal Models Approach to Market Risk Capital Requirements (Jan. 1996).

    10See BCBS, Amendment to the Capital Accord to Incorporate Market Risk (Jan. 1996).

    ICC proposed additional enhancements to consider the simultaneous default of the two worst-case AGs of CPs, rather than the two worst-case CPs, which, according to ICC, is consistent with CFTC regulations, including CFTC Regulation 39.33(c)(1)(ii).11 Under the revised framework, when computing a CP's combined house and client origin liquidity obligation for the purposes of selecting which AGs are considered to be in a state of default, ICC proposed to eliminate the application of house origin gains against client origin losses, or house origin losses against client origin gains. This analysis is designed to demonstrate to what extent the liquidity resources available to ICC were sufficient to meet historical single and multi-day cover-2 Liquidity Obligations, consistent with CFTC Regulation 39.33(c)(1)(ii), according to ICC.12

    11 17 CFR 39.33(c)(1)(ii).

    12Id.

    ICC also proposed enhancements to note that, for each day of its historical analysis and on a currency specific basis, its Risk Department explores predefined cover-2 scenarios considering the default of the CPs within two AGs creating the largest remaining Liquidity Obligation after applying the IM and GF cash deposits of each constituent CP to that CP's Liquidity Obligation.13

    13 ICC's cover-2 analysis considers the liquidity resources provided by the defaulting CPs, the GF, IM liquidity resources provided by the non-defaulting CPs and ICC, and any externally available liquidity resources.

    ICC proposed clarifying changes to note that the prices considered for historical analysis purposes are “dirty” prices as they include riskless (deterministic) payments (e.g., upfront fees, coupon payments, credit event payments, interest on mark-to-market margin). ICC proposed adding explanatory language regarding its calculation of the N-day worst-case cumulative (combined house and client origin) liquidity obligations. ICC also proposed removing a measurement and monitoring framework diagram, representing that the diagram was no longer relevant or necessary in light of the larger changes to the framework.

    Finally, ICC proposed revisions to note that ICC reports cover-2 results from the observed immediate liquidity obligation scenarios and the worst-case five-day liquidity obligation scenarios to various audiences, depending on the results. ICC notes that the results should exhibit no deficiencies of the combined resources in Levels One through Four of the Liquidity Waterfall.

    ICC proposed changes to the Stress Testing Analysis section of the Measurement and Monitoring element of the Liquidity Risk Management Framework. ICC proposed re-categorizing and adding to the stress testing scenarios. Under the revised approach, ICC would enhance its description of its historically observed extreme but plausible market scenarios to note that the scenarios define spread or price shocks based on observations during specific historical events. The historical data set from which ICC derives the proposed scenarios will continue to begin on April 1, 2007 and include periods of extreme market events such as the Bear Stearns collapse, the Lehman Brothers default, the 2009 Credit Crisis, the US “Flash Crash” event, and the European Sovereign Crisis. The scenarios are similar to the stress testing currently performed under the financial resources Stress Testing Framework.

    ICC proposed eliminating all scenarios not expected to be realized as market outcomes (i.e., those considered extreme and not plausible). Under the revised approach, ICC would continue to have the ability to execute liquidity analyses based on extreme but not plausible scenarios on an ad-hoc basis. Further, ICC proposed to add 1-day, 2-day, and N-day analogues in place of existing 5-day scenarios. Under the revised framework, each historically observed scenario would have three analogues: one representing a 1-day horizon, one representing a 2-day horizon, and one representing an N-day horizon. Previously, only analogues representing an N-day horizon were considered. The addition of the 1-day analogue would demonstrate ICC's ability to meet its immediate payment obligations over a one-day period (e.g., intraday and same-day obligations), while the 2-day and N-day analogues would demonstrate ICC's ability to meet its payment obligations over a multiday period.

    ICC also proposed adding a number of hypothetically constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios comprised of a given historically observed extreme but plausible market scenario and additional stress enhancements representing forward looking hypothetical adverse market events. Specifically, two sets of hypothetically constructed (forward looking) extreme but plausible market scenarios were proposed: loss-given default scenarios and one-service-provider-down scenarios. The loss-given default scenarios consider the addition of up to three adverse credit events including the holder of the considered portfolio, one additional CP name, and one additional non-CP name. The one-service-provider-down scenarios consider a reduction in ALR designed to represent ICC's worst-case exposure to a single service provider at which it maintains cash deposits or investments, due to ICC's potential inability to access those deposits and/or investments when required. ICC proposed that the reduction in ALR used in the one-service-provider-down scenarios is based on ICC's analysis of the diversification of its deposits and investments across its multiple service providers. Additionally, ICC proposed revisions to further describe its analysis under the above referenced scenarios.

    ICC proposed revisions to consider the simultaneous default of the two worst-case AGs of CPs, rather than the two worst-case CPs, to conform with CFTC regulations, including CFTC Regulation 39.33(c)(1)(ii), as ICC interprets such regulations.14 Under the proposed revisions, ICC would perform cover-2 analysis in which, for each scenario, it determines the two AGs creating the largest remaining Liquidity Obligation after applying the IM and GF cash deposits of each constituent CP to its own Liquidity Obligation. ICC would compare the remaining Liquidity Obligation of the AG to the remaining liquidity resources to determine if there are sufficient resources to meet the obligation.

    14 17 CFR 39.33(c)(1)(ii).

    ICC proposed enhancements to describe its cover-N analysis in which, for each scenario, it first considers the default of one AG, then the defaults of two AGs, then three AGs, and so forth. The sequence of selecting AGs is based on the remaining Liquidity Obligation associated with the constituent CP's portfolios after applying the IM and GF cash deposits of each constituent CP to its own Liquidity Obligation. AGs are sequenced from largest to smallest remaining Liquidity Obligation. For each set of AGs considered to be in a state of default (1 AG, 2 AGs, 3 AGs, etc.), ICC compares the total remaining Liquidity Obligation to the remaining liquidity resources to determine if there are sufficient resources to meet the obligation. In this way, ICC determines how many AGs it would require to be in a state of default to consume all available liquidity resources.

    To determine the Liquidity Obligations in the above analysis, ICC applies the stress scenarios to actual cleared portfolios to determine a currency-specific profit/loss for each CP, representing the largest cumulative loss over the specified risk horizon. The considered profit/loss in the analysis is the sum of the upfront fee changes corresponding to the clean prices associated with the hypothetical scenarios, and excluding the riskless (deterministic) payments.

    To determine ICC's liquidity needs for each scenario, ICC's Risk Department computes Liquidity Obligations for futures commission merchant and broker-dealer CPs by combining the net payments for house and client origin accounts. For the purposes of selecting defaulting AGs, ICC's Risk Department does not offset client origin losses with house origin gains, or offset house origin losses with client origin gains.

    3. Governance

    With respect to the Governance element of the Liquidity Risk Management Framework, the Required Analysis and Interpretation of Results and Potential Actions sections would remain substantially the same. The Model Validation section would be revised to note that the Liquidity Risk Management Framework is under the purview of the Model Validation Framework and subject to initial validations.

    In the Materiality and Reporting Framework section, ICC proposed a change that would note that, at each ICC Risk Committee meeting, ICC's Risk Department would provide a summary of historical liquidity analysis and liquidity stress testing analysis intended to demonstrate the adequacy of ICC's liquidity resources to cover Liquidity Obligations over N-days. Such analyses would also include any instance where Level Three resources were required to meet Liquidity Obligations in response to any of the considered historical liquidity or liquidity stress testing scenarios.

    Further, ICC proposed revisions to note that, when exceedances of funded and/or unfunded resources are identified, ICC's Risk Department would be required to report them to the senior management team and the ICC Risk Committee, and (i) demonstrate that the breaches do not highlight a significant liquidity risk management weaknesses or (ii) recommend specific liquidity risk management model enhancements that produce an adequate increase in funded and/or unfunded liquidity resources under the identified scenario(s). In addition to the reporting described above, ICC's Risk Department would also report to the ICC Risk Committee any instances where the Basel Traffic Light System categorizes the number of observed exceedances in its individual AG historical analysis as being in the predefined “red zone.” In these instances, ICC's Risk Department would discuss with ICC's Risk Committee the appropriateness of its liquidity thresholds, and if appropriate, make revisions.

    B. Stress Testing Framework

    ICC proposed revisions to its Stress Testing Framework to unify the stress testing scenarios with the liquidity stress testing scenarios set forth in the Liquidity Risk Management Framework. ICC operates its stress testing and liquidity stress testing on a unified set of stress testing scenarios and systems. As such, revisions to the stress testing scenarios are necessary to ensure scenario unification following changes to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework. The proposed revisions are described in detail as follows.

    ICC proposed to introduce Risk Factor specific scenarios for all stress test scenarios. Previously, corporate single names were considered at the sector level, as opposed to the Risk Factor level. This change would be reflected throughout the framework.

    ICC also proposed to add clarifying language to note that the predefined stress testing scenarios set forth in its Stress Testing Framework would be applied to all cleared instruments, and that name-specific scenarios would be applied to all sovereign and corporate reference entities.

    ICC proposed revisions to extend ICC's margin risk horizon up to 6-days, to account for the risk associated with clearing Asia Pacific products. This change would apply throughout the framework.

    ICC also proposed to revise its description of the Historically Observed Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios section to note that the stress spread changes considered as part of each scenario are extracted from the market history of the most actively traded instrument for the considered Risk Factors.

    ICC proposed to revise the Hypothetically Constructed (Forward Looking) Extreme but Plausible Market Scenarios section to ensure consistency with the loss-given default stress scenario set forth in the Liquidity Risk Management Framework, which combines a given historically observed extreme but plausible market scenario with explicit Jump-to-Default events. The proposed revisions specify that there would be up to two reference entities selected for a hypothetical adverse credit event.

    Finally, ICC proposed to revise the description of the discordant scenarios (i.e., scenarios under which selected risk factors move in opposite directions) in the Stress Testing Framework to reflect the introduction of Risk Factor specific scenarios. According to ICC, the discordant scenarios are designed to reproduce significant discordant market outcomes observed during the considered historical period. ICC creates discordant scenarios for North American corporate single names and indices; European corporate single names and indices; and sovereign reference entities.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization.15 Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions.16 Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) requires, in relevant part, that a registered clearing agency establish default procedures that ensure that the clearing agency can take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the event of a participant default.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, which revises ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework and makes conforming changes to ICC's Stress Testing Framework, is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act and Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11) thereunder. As represented by ICC, the various elements set forth in the Liquidity Risk Management Framework, and described above, ensure that ICC has sufficient liquidity resources to effectively measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk. Further, ICC represented the Liquidity Risk Management Framework supports ICC's ability to maintain sufficient liquid resources in all relevant currencies to effect same-day and, where appropriate, intraday and multiday settlement of payment obligations with a high degree of confidence under a wide range of potential stress scenarios. ICC represented that changes to the Stress Testing Framework were necessary following recent changes to the Liquidity Risk Management Framework, as ICC operates its stress testing and liquidity stress testing on a unified set of stress testing scenarios and systems. ICC stated that its stress testing practices will continue to ensure the adequacy of systemic risk protections. ICC represented that the revised stress test scenarios set forth in the Stress Testing Framework will continue to ensure that ICC maintains sufficient financial resources to withstand a default by the CP family to which it has the largest exposure in extreme but plausible market conditions. The Commission therefore believes that the proposed revisions to the ICC Liquidity Risk Management Framework and Stress Testing Framework are designed to promote the prompt and accurate settlement of securities transactions, derivatives agreements, contracts, and transactions for which ICC is responsible, consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act. Furthermore, for similar reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed revisions are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11).

    Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act allows the Commission to approve a proposed rule change earlier than 30 days after the date of publication of the notice of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register where the Commission finds good cause for so doing and publishes the reason for the finding.17 In its filing, ICC requested that the Commission approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis for good cause shown. ICC represented that the amendments to ICC's Liquidity Risk Management Framework and Stress Testing Framework set forth in the proposed rule change further ICC's compliance with CFTC regulations. The Commission also notes that the CFTC is the supervisory agency for ICC under Section 803(8)(A)(ii) of the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010.18 Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that good cause exists to approve the proposed rule change on an accelerated basis pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Exchange Act.

    17 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).

    18 12 U.S.C. 5462(8)(A)(ii).

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act that the proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2017-011) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.19

    19 In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17052 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81351; File No. SR-BOX-2017-25] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors) August 8, 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 3, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the “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 BOX Rule 7170 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors). The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

    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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization 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 Commission 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 IM-7080-3 already includes the applicable language.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74556 (March 20, 2015), 80 FR 16031 (March 26, 2015) (SR-BATS-2014-067); 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. 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 7170, 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 IM-7170-5 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 7170 and the NBBO is unavailable or deemed unreliable pursuant to Rule 7170(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 IM-7170-5 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 IM-7170-5, 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 IM-7170-5. 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 Rule 7170.

    8See proposed paragraph (b) to IM-7170-5.

    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) of IM-7170-5, 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 7170(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 7170(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 7170(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 IM-7170-5 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 IM-7170-5. 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 6110, 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 7170 to state that the Exchange will rely on paragraph (b) and IM-7170-5 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, Participant Erroneously Quotes on One Exchange Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Participant 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 Participant 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 Participant 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 7170(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 Participant A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Participant A were Customer orders.

    Example 2—Current Rule, Participant Erroneously Quotes on Multiple Exchanges

    Assumptions

    For purposes of this example, assume the following:

    • A Participant 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 Participant 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 Participant 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 7170(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, Participant 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 Participant 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 Participant 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 Participant 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 7170(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 Participant A were non-Customer orders.

    ○ The executions in all series would be nullified to the extent the incoming orders submitted by Participant 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 Circular made available to its Participants.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),15 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, 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.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    17Id.

    The Exchange again reiterates that it has retained the standard of the current rule for most reviews of options transactions pursuant to Rule 7170, 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 7170. 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 IM-7170-5 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).

    22 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act as explained below.

    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 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 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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days 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 23 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 24 thereunder.

    23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    24 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-BOX-2017-25 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-BOX-2017-25. 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-BOX-2017-25, and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.25

    25 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17066 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81353; File No. SR-MRX-2017-16] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, 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 8, 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 3, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX” 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.

    3 The Exchange's application for registration as a national securities exchange, ss [sic] approved by the Commission, incorporated the changes made previously by the other options exchanges. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-76998 (January 29, 2016); 81 FR 6066 (Feb. 4, 2016) (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 .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 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 .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 Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .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 Supplementary Material to Rule 720, Item .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 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 .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 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 .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 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 .04 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 .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.12

    12See, e.g., ISE Rule 2011, which is incorporated by reference into the MRX rules and which relates to index options potentially listed and traded on the Exchange and disclaim [sic] 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 .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 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 .04 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-MRX-2017-16 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-MRX-2017-16. 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-MRX-2017-16, and should be submitted on or before September 5, 2017.

    26 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.26

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-17068 Filed 8-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-81339; File No. SR-NSCC-2017-011] Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Certain Adjustments, Clarifications and Corrections to the Fee Provisions for Insurance and Retirement Processing Services August 8, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on August 3, 2017, National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. NSCC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 3 of the Act and subparagraphs (f)(2) 4 and (f)(4) 5 of Rule 19b-4 thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change would make certain adjustments, clarifications and corrections to the fee provisions for NSCC's Insurance and Retirement Processing Services (“I&RS”) set forth in Addendum A (Fee Structure) (“Addendum A”) of NSCC's Rules & Procedures (“Rules”), as described below.6

    6 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/nscc_rules.pdf.

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    (A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    NSCC is proposing to make adjustments, clarifications and corrections to the fee provisions for I&RS set forth in Addendum A, as described below, in order to (i) align the fees charged more closely with the costs of providing the associated products and services to Members and Limited Members of NSCC (collectively, “NSCC Members”); (ii) allocate those fees equitably among NSCC Members; and (iii) make the Rules more consistent and clear with respect to these fees.

    (i) Proposed Changes to Fees

    NSCC is proposing to make the following changes to fees set forth in Section IV.K. of Addendum A:

    A. Proposed Change to Fees for Multiple Destination Files

    NSCC currently charges NSCC Members an additional monthly fee for directing NSCC to deliver I&RS files to more than two destinations.7 NSCC added the additional monthly fees for multiple destinations in 2016 to align the fees charged with the cost of providing products and services to NSCC Members with multiple file destinations.8 Currently, the Rules state that NSCC charges an additional $50 per month for delivering files to three to four destinations and an additional $100 per month for delivering files to five or more destinations.9 NSCC has determined that charging an additional $50 monthly fee for NSCC Members that send files to five destinations is sufficient to allow NSCC to recover costs to NSCC of delivering files to such multiple destinations. Therefore, NSCC is proposing to amend its fee structure so that NSCC Members that direct NSCC to deliver files to five destinations would be charged an additional $50 per month rather than an additional $100 per month. As such, NSCC is proposing to change the additional fees charged for delivering files to multiple destinations, as described in Section IV.K. of Addendum A, to charge an additional $50 per month for delivering files to three to five destinations, and an additional $100 per month for delivering files to more than five destinations.

    7 Note 6 to Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6.

    8 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76787 (December 29, 2015), 81 FR 283 (January 5, 2016) (File No. SR-NSCC-2015-009).

    9 Note 6 to Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6.

    B. Proposed Change to Fees for Positions for Retirement Plans Files

    NSCC is proposing to add a fee for the Positions for Retirement Plans file type into the billing tier for the Positions and Valuations service (“Positions”) in Section IV.K. of Addendum A.10 Pursuant to Section 5 of Rule 57, NSCC Members can send four file types using Positions—Positions Full, Positions New, Positions for Retirement Plans, and Positions Focused.11 In 2009, NSCC created two billing tiers for Positions, with one fee for Positions Full and Positions New, and a reduced fee charged for Positions Focused.12 The fees charged for processing Positions Focused file types are lower because these files include less data than other Positions file types.13 In 2015, NSCC introduced a new file type for Positions—Positions for Retirement Plans. This file type is a full data file type, similar to the Positions Full and Positions New file types.

    10 Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6.

    11 Rule 57, supra note 6.

    12 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59285 (January 23, 2009), 74 FR 5875 (February 2, 2009) (File No. SR-NSCC-2008-13) (“2009 Fee Filing”).

    13 Subsection 2.a.(ii), Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6.

    Therefore, NSCC is now proposing to amend Addendum A to add a fee for the Positions for Retirement Plans file type that is identical to the fee for the Positions Full and Positions New file types. NSCC believes this proposed change would align the fees for processing the Positions for Retirement Plans file type with the costs of delivering this service because the costs of processing the Positions for Retirement Plans file type are similar to the cost of processing the Positions Full and Positions New file types.

    C. Proposed Change to Fees for Positions Focused

    As stated above, NSCC amended Addendum A in the 2009 Fee Filing to change the fees to be charged for processing the Positions Full, Positions New, and Positions Focused file types.14 The 2009 Fee Filing incorrectly amended Addendum A to state that NSCC would charge $1.50 per 1,000 items for processing Positions Focused files from 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 items per month.15 NSCC management had previously determined that, in order to align the fee charged with the cost of providing this service, the fee for processing Positions Focused files from 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 items per month should be $1.00 per 1,000 items.16 Therefore, NSCC is proposing to correct this error and amend Addendum A to provide that NSCC would charge $1.00 per 1,000 items for processing Positions Focused files from 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 items per month.

    14 2009 Fee Filing, supra note 12.

    15 Subsection 2.a.(ii), Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6. NSCC's Important Notice announcing the 2009 fee changes identified the intended price for this tier at $1.00 per 1,000 items. See NSCC Important Notice, “2009 Fee Revisions,” A# 6766, P&S# 6336, dated December 31, 2008, available at http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/pdf/2008/12/31/a6766.pdf.

    16 A fee of $1.00 per 1,000 items for processing Positions Focused files from 2,000,001 to 4,000,000 items per month was approved by the NSCC Core Services Operations and Planning Committee on November 13, 2008.

    D. Proposed Change to Fees for APP Non-Settlement Tiers

    NSCC is proposing to modify the fee structure for the Initial Application Information feature of I&RS (“APP”) in order to align the fees charged to settling NSCC Members with the fees charged to non-settling NSCC Members. In 2003, NSCC established two categories for the fee structure for APP—a category for settling NSCC Members and a separate category for non-settling NSCC Members.17 When the fee structure was implemented in 2003, the fees charged to settling NSCC Members were higher than the fees charged to non-settling NSCC Members and the category for settling NSCC Members contained three tiers while the category for non-settling NSCC Members contained two tiers.18 In the 2009 Fee Filing, NSCC reduced the fees applicable to settling NSCC Members for APP resulting in the fees in the first two tiers being identical to the fees in the tiers for the non-settling NSCC Members.19 In addition, in the 2009 Fee Filing, NSCC reduced the fees in the third tier for settling NSCC Members. The result of these changes is that currently, settling NSCC Members that process more than 3,499 items a month receive a discount per item while non-settling NSCC Members do not.20

    17See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 48284 (August 5, 2003), 68 FR 48430 (August 13, 2003) (File No. SR-NSCC-2003-13).

    18See id. The fees for settling NSCC Members contained three tiers: (1) 0-1,999 items per month, (2) 2,000-3,499 items per month and (3) more than 3,499 per month. The fees for non-settling NSCC Members contained only two tiers: (1) 0-1,999 items per month, and (2) more than 1,999 items per month.

    19 2009 Fee Filing, supra note 12.

    20 Subsection 2.d. Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6 (provides that settling NSCC Members that process more than 3,499 items per month in APP are charged $0.50 per item compared to $1.00 per item for processing 2,000 to 3,499 items per month).

    NSCC believes the discount tier for processing more than 3,499 items a month was not added in the category for non-settling NSCC Members because these firms are unlikely to process transactions with more than 1,999 items per month and a tier for processing more items per month above 1,999 was unnecessary. Although NSCC believes it is unlikely that non-settling NSCC Members will process more than 1,999 items per month, NSCC is proposing to remove the separate fee categories for settling and non-settling NSCC Members in order to provide that the same fees apply to both settling NSCC Members and non-settling NSCC Members. The cost to NSCC for processing APP files for settling NSCC Members and non-settling NSCC Members is the same. Therefore, NSCC proposes to amend subsection 2.d. of Section IV.K of Addendum A to provide non-settling NSCC Members with the same discount that settling NSCC Members receive if they process more than 3,499 items per month.

    (ii) Proposed Changes to the Organization of Addendum A

    NSCC is also proposing to make the following changes to the organization of Section IV.K. of Addendum A, as described below:

    A. Proposed Change to Location of Fees for Producer Management Portal

    NSCC is proposing to revise Addendum A, Section IV.K., by deleting subsection 4. and moving the fees under the heading “Batch Service Fees” in that subsection to subsection 2.h.21 These fees would be renamed “Distributor Batch Service Fees.” These fees are charged in connection with use of the Producer Management Portal and are only charged to NSCC Members that are distributors, which include broker-dealers, banks and insurance agencies that act as intermediaries for insurance companies. The proposed change would include these fees with the other fees charged for use of the Producer Management Portal, so such fees are identified in one section, and would further clarify that these fees are only charged to distributors. This proposed change would clarify this section of Addendum A, and would not change the fees charged for any services or products.

    21 Subsections 2. and 4., Section IV.K. of Addendum A, supra note 6.

    B. Proposed Change to Location of Fees Listed Under TIER 6

    NSCC is proposing to revise Addendum A, Section IV.K., subsection 3., by deleting TIER 6, and moving each of the fees listed under this TIER into TIERS 3 and 5 based on the fees being charged.22 As a result of the proposed change, each product would be listed together with other products for which the same fee is being charged under one TIER.23 The proposed rule change would move fees for “Values Inquiry” and “Policy Administration Inquiry” to TIER 3 and move fees for “Policy Administration Request,” “Death Notification Request,” “Fund Transfer,” “Withdrawals,” and “Arrangements” to TIER 5. Each of the fees moved from TIER 6 would be identified as being subject to the “In Force Transaction Chart,” which is currently set forth at the end of subsection 3., and would continue to apply to these fees. This proposed change would clarify this subsection of Addendum A, and would not change the fees charged for any services or products.

    22 Subsection 3., Section IV.K. of Addendum A of the Rules, supra note 6.

    23 TIER 6, subsection 3., Section IV.K. of Addendum A of the Rules, supra note 6.

    2. Statutory Basis

    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires, in part, that the Rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its participants.24

    24 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).

    The proposed changes to Addendum A set forth in item II(A)(1)(i)(A) above are consistent with 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 25 because the proposed fees would be equitably allocated among NSCC Members based on each NSCC Member's utilization of directing NSCC to send files to multiple destinations. In addition, NSCC believes that the proposed fee changes are reasonable because the proposed $50 additional fee is less than the $100 additional fee currently charged for delivering to five destinations, while continuing to allow NSCC to recover the costs associated with delivering to five destinations. Therefore, NSCC believes the proposed fee modifications set forth in item II(A)(1)(i)(A) above are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.26

    25Id.

    26Id.

    The proposed changes to Addendum A set forth in items II(A)(1)(i)(B) and (D) above are consistent with 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act 27 because the proposed fees would be allocated equitably among the NSCC Members that subscribe for those services based on each NSCC Member's use of such services. In addition, NSCC believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they would enable NSCC to better align its revenue with the costs and expenses required for NSCC to provide the services to NSCC Members. Specifically, with respect to II(A)(1)(i)(B), the costs of processing the Positions for Retirement Plans file type are similar to the cost of processing other full data file types and NSCC has determined that charging the same fee as is charged for other full data file types would enable it to recover its costs for processing the Positions for Retirement Plans file type. With respect to II(A)(1)(i)(D), the cost to NSCC of processing over 3,499 items per month in APP is the same for settling NSCC Members and non-settling NSCC Members and therefore the fees for settling NSCC Members and non-settling NSCC Members for APP should be the same. Therefore, by establishing fees that align with the cost of delivery of these products and services and allocating those fees equitably among the subscribing NSCC Members, the proposed changes to Addend