Federal Register Vol. 82, No.223,

Title: Self-Certification Medical Statement.

OMB Control Number: 0579-0196.

Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Marketing and Regulatory Programs (MRP) facilitates the domestic and international marketing of U.S. agricultural products and protects the health of domestic animal and plant resources. Resource management and administrative services, including human resources management, for MRP agencies are provided by the MRP Business Services unit of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

MRP agencies are authorized by the regulations in 5 CFR 339 and 29 CFR 1630 to obtain medical information from applicants for positions that have approved medical standards due to duties that are arduous, hazardous, or require a certain level of health status or fitness. These agencies have positions with duties that extend beyond sedentary and require specific medical standards and/or physical requirements to be performed successfully and safely. The medical qualifications standards for appointment to the covered positions listed in the MRP Medical Examination Requirements Charts are justified on the basis that the duties are arduous or hazardous, require a certain level of health status and fitness, and the nature of the positions involves a high degree of responsibility towards the public.

MRP uses the Self-Certification Medical Statement and documentation provided by applicants to evaluate and verify an applicant's abilities to perform the duties of the job. The inability to collect this information would adversely affect MRP's ability to make employment decisions and determinations regarding an applicant's physical fitness to safely and efficiently perform assigned duties.

We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

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

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Estimate of burden: The public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.167 hours per response.

Respondents: Members of the public applying for positions with MRP.

Estimated annual number of respondents: 606.

Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1.

Estimated annual number of responses: 607.

Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 102 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

The purpose of the meeting is to review the following fee proposals:

a. Regional fee consistency approach;

b. Monongahela National Forest fee proposals which include the Hopskin Cabin;

c. Wayne National Forest fee proposals reducing trail permit fees for off-highway vehicle (OHV) users and eliminating fees for horse and mountain bike users;

d. Hiawatha National Forest fee proposals for Grand Island;

e. Chequamengon-Nicolet National Forest fee proposals including new fees at day use sites and one cabin rental, and fee increases for overnight sites; and

f. Green Mountain Finger Lakes National Forest fee proposals including new fee at Silver Lake Campgrounds, Texas Falls Day Use Area Pavilion, Grout Pond Campground, Backbone Horse Camp and Potomac Group Camp and Pavilion and fee increases at Chittenden Brook, Moosalamoo Campground, Hapgood Pond Campground, Hapgood Pond Day Use, Hapgood Pond Group Picnic sites, and Blueberry Patch Recreation Area.

Details on all fee proposals can be found at http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r9/recreation/racs.

The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less starting at 3:00 p.m. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by January 22, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the Recreation RAC may file written statements with the Committee's staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and time requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Joanna Wilson, Eastern Region Recreation RAC Coordinator, 855 South Skylake Drive, Woodland Hills, Utah 84653; or by email to [email protected].

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

Title: Management of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros.

OMB Number: 0596—New.

Expiration Date of Approval: New.

Type of Request: New.

Abstract: This notice pertains to the collection of information that enables the Forest Service to administer its private maintenance (i.e., adoption) program for wild free roaming horses and burros located on U.S. Forest Service, Forests and Grasslands. The Forest Service uses the information to determine if applicants are qualified to provide humane care and proper treatment to wild horses and burros in compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (16 U.S.C. 1331-1340), as amended, and 36 CFR 222.60. The Forest Service gathers information from applicants intending to adopt a wild horse and/or burro, and issues a certificate of title related to the adoption. The application form provides the Forest Service information including the:

(a) Applicant's name, address, contact information, history of adoption, and care facility,

(b) Description of horse and/or burro to be adopted,

(c) Veterinarian certification that animals, prior to issuing certificate of title, are in good condition and receiving proper care and treatment under humane conditions, and

(d) Ability to care for animals, transportation, fencing, and intended use.

The information will be collected from those who wish to adopt and obtain title to the wild horses and burros.

Applicants will fill out the required form in person and submit it to the Forest Service representative administering the wild horse and burro program. The Forest Service representative will review the form and determine whether the applicant understands the terms of adoption and prohibited acts, has been in compliance with the adoption agreement, and will provide or has provided humane treatment, care, and maintenance for the animal while in their care.

Without the information from these application forms, the Forest Service will not be able to provide the oversight required to administer the wild horse and burro program as authorized and regulated by law.

Type of Respondents: Individuals, private businesses, state governments, tribal governments.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 400.

Estimate of Burden Hours per Response: 0.50 hours.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours on Respondents: 200 Hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

On March 31, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to provide the public with enough information to meaningfully participate in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process in the Nevada and Northeastern California Greater Sage-grouse Land Management Plan Amendment in Nevada. Specifically, the agencies designated Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFAs) between the draft and final Environmental Impact Statements. The court remanded the Records of Decision to the agencies to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Western Exploration, LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 250 F.Supp.3d 718, 750-751. Similar claims were raised in other, pending lawsuits.

In order to comply with the court and to address issues identified by the BLM, the states, and various interested parties, the Forest Service is considering the possibility of amending some, all, or none of the Forest Service land management plans that were amended in 2015 regarding greater sage-grouse conservation in the states of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, Utah and Montana (“2015 Sage-Grouse Plans”). The Forest Service seeks comment on certain parts of the 2015 Sage-Grouse Plans that have been preliminarily identified, but also seeks input on other related issues. The specific topics already identified for consideration include: SFA designations; mitigation standards; disturbance and density caps; modification of habitat boundaries to reflect new information; variance of management approaches within Priority Habitat Management Areas and General Habitat Management Areas; causal factors; adaptive management; the land use exemptions process; and grazing guidelines.

The Forest Service coordinated with the Sage Grouse Task Force and the BLM to identify the preliminary issues with current plan direction. The Forest Service intends to continue to work as a cooperating agency with the BLM in their planning process. This notice and the potential planning effort do not preclude the Forest Service from addressing issues through other means, including policy, training, or administrative changes, nor does it commit the Forest Service to amending some, all, or none of the greater sage-grouse plans.

If the Forest Service amends land management plans, we hereby give notice that substantive requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) likely to be directly related, and therefore applicable, to the amendments are in sections 219.8(b) (social and economic sustainability), 219.9 (diversity of plant and animal communities), and 219.10(a)(1) (integrated resource management).

In addition to requesting comment on the topics identified in this notice, the Forest Service requests input on whether, if it undertakes plan amendments, the planning effort should occur on a regional, state-by-state, or forest-by-forest basis. In particular, the Forest Service looks forward to receiving the comments of the governors of each affected State.

If any further analysis and associated decision documents are completed, the Forest Service will be the lead agency, but will invite the BLM to act as a cooperating agency. The Forest Service will consult with Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175 and other policies. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with tribes and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be asked by the Forest Service to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.

The public is encouraged to help identify any issues, management questions, or concerns that should be addressed in plan amendment(s) or policy or administrative action. The Forest Service will work collaboratively with interested parties to identify the management direction that is best suited to local, regional, and national needs and concerns. The Forest Service will use an interdisciplinary approach as it considers the variety of resource issues and concerns.

Title: Financial Information Security Request Form.

OMB Number: 0596-0204.

Expiration Date of Approval: 02/28/18.

Type of Request: Extension without Revision.

Abstract: The majority of the Forest Service's financial records are in databases stored at the National Finance Center (NFC). The Forest Service uses employees and contractors to maintain these financial records. The employees and contractors must have access to NFC to perform their duties.

The Forest Service uses an electronic form FS-6500-214, Financial Information Security Request Form, to apply to NFC for access for a specific employee or contractor. Due to program management decisions and budget constraints, it has been determined that contractors will need to complete and submit the form.

The contractor and the Forest Service systems provide the information necessary to complete form FS-6500-214. The contractor verifies completion of two courses within the last year: Privacy Act Basics and IT (Information Technology) Security. The contractor then enters their short name assigned by the Forest Service. Using the short name, the screen is populated with information that the contractor can change if incorrect. The information includes: Name, work email, work telephone number, and job title. The contractor checks the box for a non-federal employee and provides the expiration date of the contract. The contractor then selects the databases and actions needed. Based on the database(s) selected, the contractor provides additional information regarding the financial systems, work location, access scope, etc. Once the form is submitted to the client security officer, a one-page agreement automatically prints, which the contractor and client security officer sign. The agreement is a certification statement that acknowledges the contractor's recognition of the sensitive nature of the information and agrees to use the information only for authorized purposes. The information collected is shared with those managing or overseeing the financial systems used by the Forest Service, this includes auditors.

Estimate of Annual Burden: 10 minutes.

Type of Respondents: Contracted employees.

Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 9,549.

Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 3.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 4,774 hours.

Comment is invited on: (1) Whether this collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (2) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.

This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-440-5788, conference ID number: 1647618. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed to Angelica Trevino at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at https://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=259. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the order is certain tissue paper products. The merchandise subject to the order is classifiable under subheadings: 4802.30, 4802.54, 4802.61, 4802.62, 4802.69, 4804.31.1000, 4804.31.2000, 4804.31.4020, 4804.31.4040, 4804.31.6000, 4804.39, 4805.91.1090, 4805.91.5000, 4805.91.7000, 4806.40, 4808.30, 4808.90, 4811.90, 4823.90, 4802.50.00, 4802.90.00, 4805.91.90, 9505.90.40.2003.10.0027, 2003.10.0031, 2003.10.0037, 2003.10.0043 and 2003.10.0047 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

Based on Chung Rhy's timely submitted certification 2 and information from CBP,3 we preliminarily determine that Chung Rhy had no exports, sales, shipments, or entries of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In addition, the Department finds that, consistent with its assessment practice in non-market economy (NME) cases, it is appropriate not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances, but to complete the review with respect to Chung Rhy and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final results of the review.4 For additional information regarding this determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Department is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Because Global Key did not respond to our AD questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that Global Key has not demonstrated its eligibility for a separate rate, and accordingly, we are preliminarily treating Global Key as part of the PRC-wide entity.

The Department's policy regarding conditional review of the PRC-wide entity applies to this administrative review.5 Under this policy, the PRC-wide entity will not be under review unless a party specifically requests, or the Department self-initiates, a review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the PRC-wide entity in this review, the entity is not under review, and the entity's current rate, i.e., 112.64 percent,6 is not subject to change.

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

Normally, the Department will disclose the calculations used in its analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, in this case, there are no calculations to disclose.

Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results, unless the Secretary alters the time limit. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review 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.

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, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) 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.

The Department intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, AD duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.8 The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review. If the Department continues to find Global Key as part of the PRC-wide entity in the final results, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate POR entries of subject merchandise from this company at the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 percent. Moreover, if the Department continues to make a no-shipment finding for Chung Rhy in the final results, any suspended entries of subject merchandise from Chung Rhy will also be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.9

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (2) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity, 112.64 per cent; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

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

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

Chapter 19 of Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established NAFTA Rules of Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews, which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 1904(2) of NAFTA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 35. For the complete Rules, please see https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/Rules-of-Procedure/Article-1904.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 39 within 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is December 14, 2017);

(b) A Party, investigating authority or interested person that does not file a Complaint but that intends to appear in support of any reviewable portion of the final determination may participate in the panel review by filing a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 40 within 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is December 29, 2017); and

(c) The panel review shall be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

Background

On June 18, 2008, section 805 of Title VIII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008) was enacted into law. Under this provision, the Secretary of Commerce is mandated to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report every 180 days on any subsidy provided by countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States, including stumpage subsidies.

Commerce submitted its last subsidy report on June 20, 2017. As part of its newest report, Commerce intends to include a list of subsidy programs identified with sufficient clarity by the public in response to this notice.1

Given the large number of countries that export softwood lumber and softwood lumber products to the United States, we are soliciting public comment only on subsidies provided by countries the exports of which accounted for at least one percent of total U.S. imports of softwood lumber by quantity, as classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule code 4407.1001 (which accounts for the vast majority of imports), during the period January 1, 2017, through June 30, 2017. Official U.S. import data published by the United States International Trade Commission Tariff and Trade DataWeb indicate that three countires, Canada, Germany and Chile exported softwood lumber to the United States during that time period in amounts sufficient to account for at least one percent of U.S. imports of softwood lumber products. We intend to rely on similar previous six-month periods to identify the countries subject to future reports on softwood lumber subsidies. For example, we will rely on U.S. imports of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products during the period July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, to select the countries subject to the next report.

Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy exists where an authority: (i) Provides a financial contribution; (ii) provides any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the GATT 1994; or (iii) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution to a person, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by governments, and a benefit is thereby conferred.2

Parties should include in their comments: (1) The country which provided the subsidy; (2) the name of the subsidy program; (3) a brief description (at least 3-4 sentences) of the subsidy program; and (4) the government body or authority that provided the subsidy.

Persons wishing to comment should file comments by the date specified above. Comments should only include publicly available information. Commerce will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially due to business proprietary concerns or for any other reason. Any such comments or materials will be returned to the submitter and will not be considered in Commerce's report. Comments must be filed in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) submitted on CD-ROM or by email to the email address of the EC Webmaster, below.

The comments received will be made available to the public in PDF on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sla2008/sla-index.html. Any questions concerning file formatting, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Moustapha Sylla, Enforcement and Compliance Webmaster, at (202) 482-8104, email address: [email protected].

All comments and submissions in response to this Request for Comment should be received by Commerce no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the above-referenced deadline date.

Background

On July 18, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation of imports of certain tapered roller bearings from the Republic of Korea.1 Currently, the preliminary determination is due no later than December 5, 2017.

Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to issue the preliminary determination in a LTFV investigation within 140 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation. However, section 733(c)(1) of the Act permits the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if: (A) The petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) the Department concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. The Department will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.

On November 8, 2017, The Timken Company (the petitioner) submitted a timely request that we postpone the preliminary determination in this LTFV investigation. In its request, the petitioner cited outstanding issues regarding affiliation and the particular market situation which affects the cost of production information, such that further supplemental questionnaires will be required to address all issues and develop the case record.2 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner has stated the reasons for requesting a postponement of the preliminary determination, and the Department finds no compelling reason to deny the request. Therefore, pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, we are postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days (i.e., 190 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated). As a result, the Department will issue its preliminary determination no later than January 24, 2018. Pursuant to section 735(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).

The subject modification to Permit No. 18688, issued on May 5, 2015 (80 FR 36769), is requested under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Permit No. 18688 authorizes the permit holder to conduct research on sea turtles bycaught in three longline fisheries in the Pacific Ocean around Hawaii and American Samoa to assess sea turtle post-hooking survival, movements, and ecology in pelagic habitats. The permit authorizes examination, morphometrics, biological sampling, and tagging of live hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia mydas) sea turtles and the collection of carcasses, tissues and parts from dead sea turtles. Authorized take numbers for each species were consistent with the number of turtles allowed to be bycaught via the biological opinion prepared for each fishery. The permit holder requests authorization to increase the number of animals for each species that may be taken for research in the American Samoa longline fishery to match the incidental take statement of a new biological opinion prepared for this fishery after Permit No. 18688 was issued. Live sea turtles would undergo the same procedures as currently authorized by the permit. No other changes are requested.

NMFS manages the domestic groundfish fisheries in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) under the FMP, which the Council prepared under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing the BSAI groundfish fisheries appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. The FMP and the implementing regulations at § 600.745(b) and § 679.6 allow the NMFS Regional Administrator to authorize, for limited experimental purposes, fishing that would otherwise be prohibited. Procedures for issuing EFPs are contained in the implementing regulations

Pacific salmon support large commercial, recreational, and subsistence fisheries and continue to be of great cultural importance throughout Alaska. Chinook salmon bycatch, where bycatch means fish caught and released while targeting another species or caught and released while targeting the same species, in the Bering Sea pollock fishery is a concern to those who depend on those salmon resources in Alaska and Canada, and further reduction in salmon bycatch is desired by those who use salmon resources and by the pollock fishing industry. Annual limits (PSC) are placed on the number of Chinook salmon that may be taken in the BSAI trawl fisheries. Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery is managed under a system of two PSC limits (described below); allocations among the Bering Sea pollock fishery sectors, inshore cooperatives, and Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups; and other measures designed to minimize bycatch below the higher PSC limit.

The PSC limits became effective in 2011 as part of Amendment 91 to the FMP (75 FR 53026, August 30, 2010) to manage Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery. Amendment 91 includes two Chinook salmon PSC limits: the 60,000 Chinook salmon PSC limit is available to those who participate in an industry-developed incentive plan agreement (IPA) that provides incentives for each vessel to avoid Chinook salmon bycatch, and a 47,591 Chinook salmon PSC limit applies fleet-wide if industry does not form any IPAs. Currently all vessels in this fishery participate in an IPA. Amendment 110 to the FMP was implemented in 2016 (81 FR 37534, June 10, 2016) to modify the existing Chinook salmon bycatch program, specifically to make it more effective at avoiding Chinook salmon, particularly when Chinook salmon abundance is low. More details on Amendments 91 and 110 may be found in the final Environmental Impact Statement on Bering Sea Chinook Salmon Bycatch Management (Amendment 91), and the Environmental Assessment prepared for Amendment 110 (see ADDRESSES).

The majority of pollock fishermen in the Bering Sea use salmon excluder devices on a regular basis as part of the overall effort by the fishery to reduce salmon bycatch under the Chinook PSC limits and bycatch avoidance incentive programs in place in the fishery. Improvements in Chinook salmon escapement and pollock retention rates for these excluder devices would provide an enhanced opportunity to minimize Chinook salmon bycatch in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to the extent practicable, while maintaining the potential for the full harvest of the pollock total allowable catch (TAC) within specified PSC limits. An EFP is needed to facilitate effective testing of improvements to the excluder devices, because exemptions from certain regulations, as described below, would be required to meet the needs of the experimental design.

On August 15, 2017, Mr. John Gauvin, of Gauvin and Associates, LLC, submitted an application for an EFP for 2018 through 2020 to improve the performance of the salmon excluder device developed under EFP 15-01 from 2015 to 2016, and to validate the performance of this device for pollock trawl gear used in the Bering Sea. The objective of the proposed 2018 EFP is to test refinements to existing salmon excluder devices on vessels from different horsepower and size classes in the Bering Sea pollock fishery to identify the excluder design(s) and specific rigging variations that are most likely to produce the greatest relative improvements to reductions in Chinook salmon bycatch rates without significantly lowering pollock catch rates. Salmon are designated as prohibited species that are incidentally caught in the pollock fishery (§ 679.21(e) and (f)). The most effective current excluder designs and rigging configurations will be refined and tested systematically under conditions that approximate as closely as possible actual commercial fishing practices in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery. Testing will be conducted in 2018, 2019, and 2020 during the “A” season for pollock from January 20 through June 10. Results from each year would guide the device design tests in each vessel size class for each subsequent year of this EFP.

The experiment would be conducted on vessels authorized to fish in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery. Tests would be performed in each of the following three vessel classes: (1) Catcher vessels equal to or less than 1,800 horsepower, (2) catcher vessels greater than 1,800 horsepower, and (3) catcher processors. Experimental methods specify that each device and specific adjustments to be tested be inserted into a pollock trawl net with improved camera and lighting systems to monitor the flow of salmon and pollock within the net and the level of escapement through the excluder portal during normal fishing operations. The effectiveness of the excluder devices will be monitored under a set of systematic vessel operations for each vessel class.

Approximately 600 non-Chinook salmon and 600 Chinook salmon from the “A” season for each year from 2018 through 2020 would be required to support the project. In total, the applicant would be limited to harvesting 1,800 non-Chinook and 1,800 Chinook salmon during the EFP period. The experimental design requires this quantity of salmon to ensure statistically valid results. A total of 2,500 metric tons (mt) of groundfish (primarily pollock) would be taken during each “A” season in 2018 through 2020 over the duration of the EFP. Approximately 97 to 99 percent of the groundfish harvested is expected to be pollock. The experimental design requires this quantity of pollock to ensure a statistically adequate sample size for measuring pollock escapement through the salmon excluder device.

To test the salmon excluder devices, exemptions would be necessary from regulations for salmon bycatch management, observer requirements, closure areas, TACs for groundfish, and PSC limits for the pollock fishery. Following the practice that the Council and NMFS have approved for past EFP experiments dedicated to salmon bycatch reduction, groundfish and prohibited species taken during the experiment would not be counted against the annual TAC and PSC limits (65 FR 55223, September 13, 2000). Chinook salmon taken during the experiment would not be counted toward the Chinook salmon PSC limits under § 679.21(f). If the EFP salmon were counted toward and exceeded PSC limits, possibly triggering additional management measures, those EFP salmon could create an additional burden on pollock trawl fishermen.

The final 2018 Bering Sea pollock harvest specifications were published on February 27, 2017 (82 FR 11826). The acceptable biological catch (ABC) level is 2,979,000 mt, and the TAC is 1,345,000 mt. Up to 2,500 mt of pollock per year would be allowed to be harvested under the proposed EFP without accruing against the Bering Sea pollock TAC. That amount equates to 0.08 percent of the 2018 Bering Sea pollock ABC, 1.8 percent of the TAC, and 1.5 percent of the difference between the ABC and the TAC. The ABC and TAC levels for 2019 and 2020 would be set under the normal harvest specifications setting process as stipulated at § 679.20. If Bering Sea pollock ABC and TAC levels for those years are similar to 2018, the amount of pollock taken under the EFP would represent similarly low fractions of the ABC and TAC. The EFP fishing will be permitted for this proposed action if the ABC for Bering Sea pollock exceeds the TAC by at least 2,500 mt in 2019 and 2020.

Very little groundfish incidental catch occurs in the pollock fishery, and the harvest of other fish species during the EFP fishing is expected to be 25 mt to 75 mt per season. The majority of these other species harvested under the EFP likely would be Pacific cod, skates, flatfish, halibut, and jellyfish. The amount of groundfish harvest under the EFP and by the commercial groundfish fisheries is not expected to cause the ABCs for any groundfish species to be exceeded in any year from 2018 through 2020 because other groundfish TACs are set with a sufficient difference between ABC and TAC to accommodate EFP fishing catch of groundfish species other than pollock.

The EFP would include an exemption from selected observer requirements at § 679.50. Participating vessels would use “sea samplers,” who are NMFS-trained observers. They would not be deployed as NMFS observers, however, at the time of the EFP fishing. Space limitations aboard the participating vessels would preclude placing both sea samplers and observers aboard and allowing for concurrent operations. The “sea samplers” would conduct the EFP data collection and perform other observer duties that normally would be required for vessels directed fishing for pollock. Vessels would not be exempt from observer requirements for non-EFP fishing during trips in which both EFP and non-EFP fishing occurs.

The applicant also requested an exemption to fish in areas otherwise closed to fishing with trawl gear under 50 CFR part 679: § 679.22(a)(7)(ii) and the Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA) (§ 679.22(a)(7)(vii)). Exempted fishing must be conducted outside Steller sea lion protection areas closed to pollock trawl fishing, as described at § 679.22(a)(7), except the sector closure of the Steller Sea Lion Conservation Area (SCA) under § 679.22(a)(7)(vii)(C)(2). The SCA exemption will only apply as long as the combined amount of pollock taken from the SCA does not exceed the 28 percent annual total allowable catch limit (TAC) before April 1, as specified in the Steller sea lion protection measures (§§ 679.20(a)(5)(i)(C) and 679.22(a)(7)(vii)). The experimental design requires that the tests be conducted in areas of salmon concentration sufficient to ensure a statistically adequate sample size. The SCA includes areas of high salmon concentration and is therefore an ideal location for conducting the experiment and ensuring that the vessel encounters sufficient concentrations of salmon and pollock for meeting the experimental design.

The applicant would be required to submit to NMFS a final report of the EFP results by December 31, 2020. The report would include the salmon excluder device designs and rigging configurations tested in the experiment; how the tests were conducted, including operational variables tested (such as towing speeds, water conditions, target catch rates); performance of the device in terms of salmon bycatch reduction, target catch escapement, handling, and maintenance; and the total catch of each groundfish species and Pacific halibut in metric tons and the total number of each salmon species caught during EFP fishing.

The activities that would be conducted under this EFP are not expected to have a significant impact on the human environment, as detailed in the draft categorical exclusion prepared for this action (see ADDRESSES). The EFP would be subject to modifications pending any new relevant information regarding the 2018 through 2020 fishery, including the groundfish harvest specifications.

In accordance with § 679.6 and 600 CFR 745(b)(3)(ii), NMFS has determined that the application warrants further consideration and has forwarded the application to the Council to initiate consultation. The Council is scheduled to consider the EFP application during its December 2017 meeting, which will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK. The applicant has been invited to appear in support of the application.

Interested persons may comment on the application at the December 2017 Council meeting during public testimony or until December 12, 2017. Information regarding the meeting is available at the Council's Web site at http://www.npfmc.org. Copies of the application and categorical exclusion are available for review from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). Comments also may be submitted directly to NMFS (see ADDRESSES) by the end of the comment period (see DATES).

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

Title of Collection: Office of State Support Progress Check Quarterly Protocol.

OMB Control Number: 1810-NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 53.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 636.

Abstract: The Office of State Support (OSS) administers Title I, Sections 1001-1004 (School Improvement); Title I, Part A (Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies); Title I, Part B (Enhanced Assessments Grants (EAG), and Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities); Title II, Part A (Supporting Effective Instruction); Title III, Part A (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement); and School Improvement Grants (SIG). Quarterly progress checks, phone or in-person conversations every three months of a fiscal year with State directors and coordinators, help ensure that State Educational Agencies (SEAs) are making progress toward increasing student achievement and improving the quality of instruction for all students through regular conversations about the quality of SEA implementation of OSS administered programs. The information shared with the OSS helps inform the selection and delivery of technical assistance to SEAs and aligns structures, processes, and routines so the OSS can regularly monitor the connection between grant administration and intended outcomes. Progress checks also allow the OSS to proactively engage with SEAs to identify any issues ahead of formal monitoring visits, decreasing the need for enforcement actions and minimizing burden for SEAs. ED will collect this data from the 53 grantees that receive the grants listed above to inform its review of grantee implementation, outcomes, oversight, and accountability. In order to allow for a comprehensive program review of OSS grantees, we are requesting a three-year clearance with this form.

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

Title of Collection: International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS 2018) Main Study.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0929.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 15,842.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 9,451.

Abstract: The International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) is a computer-based international assessment of eighth-grade students' computer and information literacy (CIL) skills that will provide a comparison of U.S. student performance and technology access and use with those of the international peers. ICILS collects data on eighth-grade students' abilities to collect, manage, evaluate, and share digital information; their understanding of issues related to the safe and responsible use of electronic information; on student access to, use of, and engagement with ICT at school and at home; school environments for teaching and learning CIL; and teacher practices and experiences with ICT. The data collected through ICILS will also provide information about the nature and extent of the possible “digital divide” and has the potential to inform understanding of the relationship between technology skills and experience and student performance in other core subject areas. ICILS is conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an international collective of research organizations and government agencies that create the assessment framework, assessment, and background questionnaires. In the U.S., the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) conducts this study. In preparation for the ICILS 2018 main study, NCES conducted a field test from May through June 2017 to evaluate new assessment items and background questions, to ensure practices that promote low exclusion rates, and to ensure that classroom and student sampling procedures proposed for the main study are successful. Recruitment for the main study began in May of 2017. This request is to conduct the ICILS main study data collection in the United States from March through May 2018.

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

Title of Collection: 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0888.

Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 4,368.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 5,042.

Abstract: The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) is an international survey of teachers and principals that focuses on the working conditions of teachers and the teaching and learning practices in schools. TALIS was first administered in 2008 and is conducted every five years. Having participated in 2013 but not in 2008, the United States will administer TALIS for the second time in 2018. TALIS is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, TALIS is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), of the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education. TALIS 2018 will address teacher training and professional development, teachers' appraisal, school climate, school leadership, teachers' instructional approaches, teachers' pedagogical practices, and their experience with and support for teaching diverse populations. In February 2017, the TALIS 2018 field test was conducted to evaluate newly developed teacher and school questionnaire items and test the survey operations. The recruitment of schools for the 2018 main study sample was approved in September 2016 with the latest change request approved in June 2017 (OMB# 1850-0888 v. 4-6). This request is to conduct the TALIS 2018 main study.

Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: Pursuant to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified toxic chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels must submit annually to EPA and to designated State or Tribal officials toxic chemical release forms containing information specified by EPA. In addition, pursuant to section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), facilities reporting under section 313 of EPCRA must also report pollution prevention and waste management data, including recycling information, for such chemicals. EPA compiles and stores these reports in a publicly accessible database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Form Numbers: None.

Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that submit annual reports under section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of PPA.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (EPCRA Section 313).

Estimated number of respondents: 21,856.

Frequency of response: Annual.

Total estimated burden: 3,597,275 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Total estimated cost: $199,217,089 (per year), includes $0 in annualized capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is an increase of 41,277 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase reflects a slight increase in the number of facilities reporting to TRI.

Background: The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. EPA established NACEPT in 1988 to provide advice to the EPA Administrator on a broad range of environmental policy, management and technology issues. Members serve as representatives from academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and state, local, and tribal governments. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for two year terms. The Council usually meets 2-3 times annually face-to-face or via video/teleconference and the average workload for the members is approximately 10 to 15 hours per month. Members serve on the Council in a voluntary capacity. However, EPA provides reimbursement for travel and incidental expenses associated with official government business. EPA is seeking nominations from candidates representing all sectors noted above. Within these sectors, EPA encourages nominees with a strong background in the following areas to apply: Data management/monitoring, social science, economic initiatives, public health, biodiversity, community sustainability, environmental policy/management, and environmental justice. Nominees will be considered according to the mandates of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which requires committees to maintain diversity across a broad range of constituencies, sectors, groups, and geographical locations. EPA values and embraces diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA welcomes nominations from women and men of all racial and ethnic groups, as well as persons with disabilities. Please note that interested candidates may self-nominate.

The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:

EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed to two year terms.

Prospective candidates interested in being considered for an appointment to serve on the Council, should submit the following items to process your nomination package: Nomination packages must include a brief statement of interest, resume, or curriculum vitae (CV), and a short biography (no more than two paragraphs) describing your professional and educational qualifications, including a list of relevant activities and any current or previous service on advisory committees. The statement of interest, resume or CV, and short biography should include the candidate's full name, name and address of current organization, position title, email address, and daytime telephone number(s).

In preparing your statement of interest, please describe how your background, knowledge, and experience will bring value to the work of the committee, and how these qualifications would contribute to the overall diversity of the Council. Also, be sure to describe any previous involvement with the Agency through employment, grant funding and/or contracting sources.

To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, also tell us how you learned of this opportunity in your statement of interest (cover letter).

Anyone interested in being considered for nomination is encouraged to submit a nomination (application) package by the submission deadline on January 3, 2018. To expedite the process, it is preferable to submit the nomination package with the required information/documents electronically (Word/PDF) to [email protected]. Please reference: “NACEPT 2018 Membership Nomination Package for (insert candidate's name)” in the subject heading.

Background: GNEB is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. GNEB was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act, Public Law 102-532, 7 U.S.C. Section 5404. Implementing authority was delegated to the Administrator of EPA under Executive Order 12916. The GNEB is charged by statute with submitting an annual report to the President on environmental and infrastructure issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region. The statute creating the GNEB calls for it to include representatives from U.S. Government agencies; the governments of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and private organizations with experience in environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S.-Mexico border. Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for two year terms with the possibility of reappointment. The GNEB meets approximately three times annually either in person or via video/teleconference. The average workload for committee members is approximately 10 to 15 hours per month. Members serve on the committees in a voluntary capacity. Although EPA is unable to offer compensation or an honorarium, members may receive travel and per diem allowances, according to applicable federal travel regulations. The EPA is seeking nominations from a variety of nongovernmental organizations in the U.S.-Mexico border region, including representatives from business and industry, academia, environmental groups, public health organizations, and other sectors. EPA is also seeking representatives from state, local, and tribal governments. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups.

The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:

• Background and experience that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (e.g., geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational, and other considerations).

• Representative of a sector or group that helps to shape border region environmental policy, or representatives of a group that is affected by border region environmental policy.

• Extensive professional knowledge and experience with the particular issues that the GNEB examines (i.e. environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S.-Mexico border), including the bi-national dimension of these issues.

• Senior level experience dealing with environmental and infrastructure issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

• Possesses a demonstrated ability to work in a consensus building process with a wide range of representatives from diverse constituencies.

• Ability to contribute approximately 10 to 15 hours per month to the GNEB's activities, including face-to-face meetings, conference calls and participation in the development of the GNEB's annual report to the President and occasional advice letters.

• Nominees may self-nominate.

If you are interested in serving on the GNEB, please submit the following information:

• Nominations must include a brief statement of interest, a resume or curriculum vitae, and a short biography describing your professional and educational qualifications, including a list of relevant activities and any current or previous service on advisory committees. The statement of interest, resume, curriculum vitae, or short biography should include the candidate's name, name and address of current organization, position title, email address, and daytime telephone number(s). In preparing your statement of interest, please describe how your background, knowledge, and experience will bring value to the work of the Board, and how these qualifications would contribute to the overall diversity of the GNEB. Also, please describe any previous involvement with EPA through employment, grant funding and/or contracting sources.

• Candidates from the academic sector must also provide a letter of recommendation authorizing the nominee to represent their institution.

• Please be advised that federally registered lobbyists are not permitted to serve on federal advisory committees.

Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's commitment to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback includes information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management. The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public. The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this generic clearance if it meets the following conditions.

• The collections are voluntary.

• The collections are low-burden for respondents and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.

• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies.

• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future.

• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained.

• Information gathered will be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency.

• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions.

• Information gathered will yield qualitative information; the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study.

Respondents/affected entities: Individuals and Households; Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government.

Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.

Estimated number of respondents: 120,000 (total).

Frequency of response: Once per request.

Total estimated burden: 30,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is increase of 10,000 hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB. This increase in hours is due to the increase in the use of surveys by the Agency.

On April 5, 2013, in light of the then forthcoming broadcast incentive auction, the Media Bureau issued its April 2013 Freeze Public Notice announcing that it would not accept for filing minor modification applications for changes to existing television service areas that would increase a full power television station's noise-limited contour or a Class A station's protected contour beyond the area resulting from the station's authorized facilities as of that date, and would not process pending applications at variance with these limitations. Auction 1000, which was conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, was completed on April 13, 2017, and stations that were assigned new channels in connection with the auction have had an opportunity to file for alternate channels and/or expanded facilities.

The Media Bureau is temporarily lifting the limitations imposed by the April 2013 Freeze Public Notice for full power and Class A stations that were not assigned a new channel, beginning on Tuesday, November 28, 2017. The freeze will be reimposed at 11:59 p.m. EST on Thursday, December 7, 2017. The Media Bureau will also process minor modification applications at variance with the freeze limitations that have been pending since April 5, 2013.

Applications submitted during this time period will be processed on a first come/first served basis. Applications proposing to change a station's channel will not be accepted for filing.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0790.

Title: Section 68.110 (c), Availability of Inside Wiring Information.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 200 respondents; 1,200 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Providers of wireline telecommunications services that willfully or repeatedly fail to comply with this rule are subject to forfeitures under 47 CFR 1.80. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 218, 220 and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden: 1,200 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $5,000.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit any confidential trade secrets or proprietary information to the FCC.

Needs and Uses: Section 68.110(c) requires that any available technical information concerning carrier-installed wiring on the customer's side of the demarcation point, including copies of existing schematic diagrams and service records, shall be provided by the telephone company upon request of the building owner or agent thereof. The provider of wireline telecommunications services may charge the building owner a reasonable fee for this service, which shall not exceed the cost involved in locating and copying the documents. In the alternative, the provider may make these documents available for review and copying by the building owner or his agent. In this case, the wireline telecommunications carrier may charge a reasonable fee, which shall not exceed the cost involved in making the documents available, and may also require the building owner or his agent to pay a deposit to guarantee the documents' return. The information is needed so that building owners may choose to contract with an installer of their choice on inside wiring maintenance and installation services to modify existing wiring or assist with the installation of additional inside wiring.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0813.

Title: Section 20.18, Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other-for-profit and State, local and tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 877 Respondents; 744 Responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1 hours.

Frequency of Response: One-time third party disclosure requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, and 403

Total Annual Burden: 698 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

Needs and Uses: The information collection entailed in a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request is necessary to initiate E911 service, and serves as notice to the CMRS provider. The notification requirement on PSAPs will be used by the carriers to verify that wireless E911 calls are referred to PSAPs who have the technical capability to use the data to the caller's benefit. If the carrier challenges the validity of the request, the request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request provides the following information:

A. Cost Recovery. The PSAP must demonstrate that a mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements;

B. Necessary Equipment. The PSAP must provide evidence that it has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; and

C. Necessary Facilities. The PSAP must demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP.

In the alternative, the PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is E911 capable using a Non-Call Associated Signaling technology, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the necessary ALI database upgrade.

I. Background

Section 1818 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for voluntary enrollment in the Medicare Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A), subject to payment of a monthly premium, of certain persons aged 65 and older who are uninsured under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program or the Railroad Retirement Act and do not otherwise meet the requirements for entitlement to Medicare Part A. These “uninsured aged” individuals are uninsured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act, because they do not have 40 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act (or are/were not married to someone who did). (Persons insured under the OASDI program or the Railroad Retirement Act and certain others do not have to pay premiums for Medicare Part A.)

Section 1818A of the Act provides for voluntary enrollment in Medicare Part A, subject to payment of a monthly premium for certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other entitlement. These are individuals who were entitled to coverage due to a disabling impairment under section 226(b) of the Act, but who are no longer entitled to disability benefits and free Medicare Part A coverage because they have gone back to work and their earnings exceed the statutorily defined “substantial gainful activity” amount (section 223(d)(4) of the Act).

Section 1818A(d)(2) of the Act specifies that the provisions relating to premiums under section 1818(d) through section 1818(f) of the Act for the aged will also apply to certain disabled individuals as described above.

Section 1818(d)(1) of the Act requires us to estimate, on an average per capita basis, the amount to be paid from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the upcoming calendar year (CY) (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A. We must then determine the monthly actuarial rate for the following year (the per capita amount estimated above divided by 12) and publish the dollar amount for the monthly premium in the succeeding CY. If the premium is not a multiple of $1, the premium is rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 (or, if it is a multiple of 50 cents but not of $1, it is rounded to the next highest $1).

Section 13508 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66) amended section 1818(d) of the Act to provide for a reduction in the premium amount for certain voluntary enrollees (section 1818 and section 1818A of the Act). The reduction applies to an individual who is eligible to buy into the Medicare Part A program and who, as of the last day of the previous month:

• Had at least 30 quarters of coverage under Title II of the Act;

• Was married, and had been married for the previous 1 year period, to a person who had at least 30 quarters of coverage;

• Had been married to a person for at least 1 year at the time of the person's death if, at the time of death, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage; or

• Is divorced from a person and had been married to the person for at least 10 years at the time of the divorce if, at the time of the divorce, the person had at least 30 quarters of coverage.

Section 1818(d)(4)(A) of the Act specifies that the premium that these individuals will pay for CY 2018 will be equal to the premium for uninsured aged enrollees reduced by 45 percent.

The monthly premium for the uninsured aged and certain disabled individuals who have exhausted other entitlement for the 12 months beginning January 1, 2018, is $422.

The monthly premium for the individuals eligible under section 1818(d)(4)(B) of the Act, and therefore, subject to the 45 percent reduction in the monthly premium, is $232.

As discussed in section I of this notice, the monthly Medicare Part A premium is equal to the estimated monthly actuarial rate for CY 2018 rounded to the nearest multiple of $1 and equals one-twelfth of the average per capita amount, which is determined by projecting the number of Medicare Part A enrollees aged 65 years and over as well as the benefits and administrative costs that will be incurred on their behalf.

The steps involved in projecting these future costs to the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are:

• Establishing the present cost of services furnished to beneficiaries, by type of service, to serve as a projection base;

• Projecting increases in payment amounts for each of the service types; and

• Projecting increases in administrative costs.

We base our projections for CY 2018 on—(1) current historical data; and (2) projection assumptions derived from current law and the Mid-Session Review of the President's Fiscal Year 2018 Budget.

We estimate that in CY 2018, 50,295,843 people aged 65 years and over will be entitled to (enrolled in) benefits (without premium payment) and that they will incur about $254.518 billion in benefits and related administrative costs. Thus, the estimated monthly average per capita amount is $421.70 and the monthly premium is $422. Subsequently, the full monthly premium reduced by 45 percent is $232.

The CY 2018 premium of $422 is approximately 2 percent higher than the CY 2017 premium of $413. We estimate that approximately 668,000 enrollees will voluntarily enroll in Medicare Part A, by paying the full premium. We estimate that over 90 percent of these individuals will have their Part A premium paid for by states, since they are enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary Program (a Medicaid program which helps certain low-income individuals with Medicare premium and cost-sharing liability). Furthermore, the CY 2018 reduced premium of $232 is approximately 2 percent higher than the CY 2017 premium of $227. We estimate an additional 71,000 enrollees will pay the reduced premium. Therefore, we estimate that the total aggregate cost to enrollees paying these premiums in CY 2018, compared to the amount that they paid in CY 2017, will be about $76 million.

We ordinarily publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register and invite public comment prior to a rule taking effect in accordance with section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and section 1871 of the Act. However, we believe that the policies being publicized in this document do not constitute agency rulemaking. Rather, the statute requires that the agency determine the applicable premium amount for each calendar year in accordance with the statutory formula, and we are simply notifying the public of the changes to the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2018. To the extent any of the policies articulated in this document constitute interpretations of the statute's requirements or procedures that will be used to implement the statute's directive, they are interpretive rules, general statements of policy, and rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice, which are not subject to notice and comment rulemaking under the APA.

To the extent that notice and comment rulemaking would otherwise apply, we find good cause to waive this requirement. Under the APA, we may waive notice and public procedure if we find good cause that prior notice and comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. We believe that notice and comment rulemaking for this notification of Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2018 is unnecessary because of the lack of CMS discretion in the statutory formula that is used to calculate the premium and the solely ministerial function that this notice serves. Therefore, we find good cause to waive notice and comment procedures, if such procedures are required at all.

This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Section 1818(d) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) during September of each year to determine and publish the amount to be paid, on an average per capita basis, from the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund for services incurred in the impending CY (including the associated administrative costs) on behalf of individuals aged 65 and over who will be entitled to benefits under Medicare Part A.

We have examined the impacts of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review (September 30, 1993), Executive Order 13563 on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 1980, Pub. L. 96-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104-4), Executive Order 13132 on Federalism (August 4, 1999), the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)) and Executive Order 13771 on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (January 30, 2017).

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more in any 1 year, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. As stated in section IV of this notice, we estimate that the overall effect of the changes in the Part A premium will be a cost to voluntary enrollees (section 1818 and section 1818A of the Act) of about $76 million. As a result, this notice is non-economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief of small entities, if a rule has a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, small entities include small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Most hospitals and most other providers and suppliers are small entities, either by nonprofit status or by having revenues of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 million in any 1 year (for details, see the Small Business Administration's Web site at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).

Individuals and states are not included in the definition of a small entity. As discussed above, this annual notice announces the Medicare Part A premiums for CY 2018. As a result, we are not preparing an analysis for the RFA because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act (Act) requires us to prepare a regulatory impact analysis if a rule may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. This analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we define a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a metropolitan statistical area and has fewer than 100 beds. As discussed above, we are not preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) of the Act, because the Secretary has determined that this notice will not have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule whose mandates require spending in any 1 year of $100 million in 1995 dollars, updated annually for inflation. In 2017, that threshold is approximately $148 million. This notice does not impose mandates that will have a consequential effect of $148 million or more on state, local, or tribal governments or on the private sector.

Executive Order 13771, titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” was issued on January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017). It has been determined that this notice is a transfer notice that does not impose more than de minimis costs and thus is not a regulatory action for the purposes of E.O. 13771.

Executive Order 13132 establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a proposed rule (and subsequent final rule) that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments, preempts state law, or otherwise has Federalism implications. This notice will not have a substantial direct effect on state or local governments, preempt state law, or otherwise have Federalism implications.

Although this notice merely announces Medicare's Part A premiums for CY 2018 and does not constitute a substantive rule, we nevertheless prepared this Impact Statement in the interest of ensuring that the impacts of this notice are fully understood.

I. Background

Section 1813 of the Social Security Act (the Act) provides for an inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary. It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to determine and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).

Section 1813(b) of the Act prescribes the method for computing the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible. The inpatient hospital deductible is an amount equal to the inpatient hospital deductible for the preceding CY, adjusted by our best estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases (as defined in section 1886(b)(3)(B) of the Act) used for updating the payment rates to hospitals for discharges in the fiscal year (FY) that begins on October 1 of the same preceding CY, and adjusted to reflect changes in real case-mix. The adjustment to reflect real case-mix is determined on the basis of the most recent case-mix data available. The amount determined under this formula is rounded to the nearest multiple of $4 (or, if midway between two multiples of $4, to the next higher multiple of $4).

Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(i)(XX) of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates for FY 2018 for hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system is the market basket percentage increase, otherwise known as the market basket update, reduced by 0.75 percentage points (see section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xii)(V) of the Act), and an adjustment based on changes in the economy-wide productivity (the multifactor productivity (MFP) adjustment) (see section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act). Under section 1886(b)(3)(B)(viii) of the Act, for FY 2018, the applicable percentage increase for hospitals that do not submit quality data as specified by the Secretary is reduced by one quarter of the market basket update. We are estimating that after accounting for those hospitals receiving the lower market basket update in the payment-weighted average update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals submit quality data and receive the full market basket update. Section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ix) of the Act requires that any hospital that is not a meaningful electronic health record (EHR) user (as defined in section 1886(n)(3) of the Act) will have three-quarters of the market basket update reduced by 100 percent for FY 2017 and each subsequent fiscal year. We are estimating that after accounting for these hospitals receiving the lower market basket update, the calculated deductible will not be affected, since the majority of hospitals are meaningful EHR users and are expected to receive the full market basket update.

Under section 1886 of the Act, the percentage increase used to update the payment rates for FY 2018 for hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system is as follows:

• The percentage increase for long term care hospitals is 1 percent (see sections 1886(m)(3)(A) and 1886(m)(4)(F) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments and the site-neutral payment rates (see sections 1886(m)(5) and 1886(m)(6) of the Act).

• The percentage increase for inpatient rehabilitation facilities is 1 percent (see sections 1886(j)(3)(C) and 1886(j)(3)(D)(v) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments (see section 1886(j)(7) of the Act).

• The percentage increase used to update the payment rate for inpatient psychiatric facilities is the market basket percentage increase reduced by 0.75 percentage points and the MFP adjustment (see sections 1886(s)(2)(A)(i), 1886(s)(2)(A)(ii), and 1886(s)(3)(E) of the Act). In addition, these hospitals may also be impacted by the quality reporting adjustments (see section 1886(s)(4) of the Act).

• The percentage increase for other types of hospitals excluded from the inpatient hospital prospective payment system (cancer hospitals, children's hospitals, and hospitals located outside the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) is the market basket percentage increase (see section 1886(b)(3)(B)(ii)(VIII) of the Act).

The Inpatient Prospective Payment System market basket percentage increase for FY 2018 is 2.7 percent and the MFP adjustment is 0.6 percentage point, as announced in the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on August 14, 2017 entitled, “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” (82 FR 37990). Therefore, the percentage increase for hospitals paid under the inpatient prospective payment system that submit quality data and are meaningful EHR users is 1.35 percent (that is, the FY 2018 market basket update of 2.7 percent less the MFP adjustment of 0.6 percentage point and less 0.75 percentage point). The average payment percentage increase for hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system is 1.38 percent. This average includes long term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and other hospitals excluded from the inpatient prospective payment system. Weighting these percentages in accordance with payment volume, our best estimate of the payment-weighted average of the increases in the payment rates for FY 2018 is 1.35 percent.

To develop the adjustment to reflect changes in real case-mix, we first calculated an average case-mix for each hospital that reflects the relative costliness of that hospital's mix of cases compared to those of other hospitals. We then computed the change in average case-mix for hospitals paid under the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system in FY 2017 compared to FY 2016. (We excluded from this calculation hospitals whose payments are not based on the inpatient prospective payment system because their payments are based on alternate prospective payment systems or reasonable costs.) We used Medicare bills from prospective payment hospitals that we received as of July 2017. These bills represent a total of about 7.5 million Medicare discharges for FY 2017 and provide the most recent case-mix data available at this time. Based on these bills, the change in average case-mix in FY 2017 is −0.09 percent. Based on these bills and past experience, we expect the overall case mix change to be 0.4 percent as the year progresses and more FY 2017 data become available.

Section 1813 of the Act requires that the inpatient hospital deductible be adjusted only by that portion of the case-mix change that is determined to be real. Real case-mix is that portion of case-mix that is due to changes in the mix of cases in the hospital and not due to coding optimization. We expect that all of the change in average case-mix for FY 2017 will be real and estimate that this change will be 0.4 percent.

Thus as stated above, the estimate of the payment-weighted average of the applicable percentage increases used for updating the payment rates is 1.35 percent, and the real case-mix adjustment factor for the deductible is 0.4 percent. Therefore, using the statutory formula as stated in section 1813(b) of the Act, we calculate the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in CY 2018 to be $1,340. This deductible amount is determined by multiplying $1,316 (the inpatient hospital deductible for CY 2017 (81 FR 80060)) by the payment-weighted average increase in the payment rates of 1.0135 multiplied by the increase in real case-mix of 1.004, which equals $1,339.10 and is rounded to $1,340.

The coinsurance amounts provided for in section 1813 of the Act are defined as fixed percentages of the inpatient hospital deductible for services furnished in the same CY. The increase in the deductible generates increases in the coinsurance amounts. For inpatient hospital and extended care services furnished in CY 2018, in accordance with the fixed percentages defined in the law, the daily coinsurance for the 61st through 90th day of hospitalization in a benefit period will be $335 (one-fourth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(A) of the Act); the daily coinsurance for lifetime reserve days will be $670 (one-half of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(1)(B) of the Act); and the daily coinsurance for the 21st through 100th day of extended care services in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) in a benefit period will be $167.50 (one-eighth of the inpatient hospital deductible as stated in section 1813(a)(3) of the Act).

The Table below summarizes the deductible and coinsurance amounts for CYs 2017 and 2018, as well as the number of each that is estimated to be paid.

I. Background

Part B is the voluntary portion of the Medicare program that pays all or part of the costs for physicians' services; outpatient hospital services; certain home health services; services furnished by rural health clinics, ambulatory surgical centers, and comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities; and certain other medical and health services not covered by Medicare Part A, Hospital Insurance. Medicare Part B is available to individuals who are entitled to Medicare Part A, as well as to U.S. residents who have attained age 65 and are citizens and to aliens who were lawfully admitted for permanent residence and have resided in the United States for 5 consecutive years. Part B requires enrollment and payment of monthly premiums, as described in 42 CFR part 407, subpart B, and part 408, respectively. The premiums paid by (or on behalf of) all enrollees fund approximately one-fourth of the total incurred costs, and transfers from the general fund of the Treasury pay approximately three-fourths of these costs.

The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is required by section 1839 of the Social Security Act (the Act) to announce the Part B monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled beneficiaries as well as the monthly Part B premium. The Part B annual deductible is included because its determination is directly linked to the aged actuarial rate.

The monthly actuarial rates for aged and disabled enrollees are used to determine the correct amount of general revenue financing per beneficiary each month. These amounts, according to actuarial estimates, will equal, respectively, one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each aged enrollee (age 65 or over) and one-half of the expected average monthly cost of Part B for each disabled enrollee (under age 65).

The Part B deductible to be paid by enrollees is also announced. Prior to the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173), the Part B deductible was set in statute. After setting the 2005 deductible amount at $110, section 629 of the MMA (amending section 1833(b) of the Act) required that the Part B deductible be indexed beginning in 2006. The inflation factor to be used each year is the annual percentage increase in the Part B actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over. Specifically, the 2018 Part B deductible is calculated by multiplying the 2017 deductible by the ratio of the 2018 aged actuarial rate to the 2017 aged actuarial rate. The amount determined under this formula is then rounded to the nearest $1.

The monthly Part B premium rate to be paid by aged and disabled enrollees is also announced. (Although the costs to the program per disabled enrollee are different than for the aged, the statute provides that they pay the same premium amount.) Beginning with the passage of section 203 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-603), the premium rate, which was determined on a fiscal-year basis, was limited to the lesser of the actuarial rate for aged enrollees, or the current monthly premium rate increased by the same percentage as the most recent general increase in monthly Title II Social Security benefits.

However, the passage of section 124 of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) (Pub. L. 97-248) suspended this premium determination process. Section 124 of TEFRA changed the premium basis to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). Section 606 of the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Pub. L. 98-21), section 2302 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA 84) (Pub. L. 98-369), section 9313 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA 85) (Pub. L. 99-272), section 4080 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 (OBRA 87) (Pub. L. 100-203), and section 6301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) (Pub. L. 101-239) extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees). This extension expired at the end of 1990.

The premium rate for 1991 through 1995 was legislated by section 1839(e)(1)(B) of the Act, as added by section 4301 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA 90) (Pub. L. 101-508). In January 1996, the premium determination basis would have reverted to the method established by the 1972 Social Security Act Amendments. However, section 13571 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 93) (Pub. L. 103-66) changed the premium basis to 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees) for 1996 through 1998.

Section 4571 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-33) permanently extended the provision that the premium be based on 50 percent of the monthly actuarial rate for aged enrollees (that is, 25 percent of program costs for aged enrollees).

The BBA included a further provision affecting the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates and premiums for 1998 through 2003. Section 4611 of the BBA modified the home health benefit payable under Part A for individuals enrolled in Part B. Under this section, beginning in 1998, expenditures for home health services not considered “post-institutional” are payable under Part B rather than Part A. However, section 4611(e)(1) of the BBA required that there be a transition from 1998 through 2002 for the aggregate amount of the expenditures transferred from Part A to Part B. Section 4611(e)(2) of the BBA also provided a specific yearly proportion for the transferred funds. The proportions were one-sixth for 1998, one-third for 1999, one-half for 2000, two-thirds for 2001, and five-sixths for 2002. For the purpose of determining the correct amount of financing from general revenues of the Federal Government, it was necessary to include only these transitional amounts in the monthly actuarial rates for both aged and disabled enrollees, rather than the total cost of the home health services being transferred.

Section 4611(e)(3) of the BBA also specified, for the purpose of determining the premium, that the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and over be computed as though the transition would occur for 1998 through 2003 and that one-seventh of the cost be transferred in 1998, two-sevenths in 1999, three-sevenths in 2000, four-sevenths in 2001, five-sevenths in 2002, and six-sevenths in 2003. Therefore, the transition period for incorporating this home health transfer into the premium was 7 years while the transition period for including these services in the actuarial rate was 6 years.

Section 811 of the MMA, which amended section 1839 of the Act, requires that, starting on January 1, 2007, the Part B premium a beneficiary pays each month be based on his or her annual income. Specifically, if a beneficiary's modified adjusted gross income is greater than the legislated threshold amounts (for 2018, $85,000 for a beneficiary filing an individual income tax return and $170,000 for a beneficiary filing a joint tax return), the beneficiary is responsible for a larger portion of the estimated total cost of Part B benefit coverage. In addition to the standard 25-percent premium, these beneficiaries now have to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount. The MMA made no change to the actuarial rate calculation, and the standard premium, which will continue to be paid by beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income is below the applicable thresholds, still represents 25 percent of the estimated total cost to the program of Part B coverage for an aged enrollee. However, depending on income and tax filing status, a beneficiary can now be responsible for 35, 50, 65, or 80 percent of the estimated total cost of Part B coverage, rather than 25 percent. (For 2018 and subsequent years, the income thresholds are lower for the two highest income ranges because of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) (Pub. L. 114-10).) The end result of the higher premium is that the Part B premium subsidy is reduced, and less general revenue financing is required, for beneficiaries with higher income because they are paying a larger share of the total cost with their premium. That is, the premium subsidy continues to be approximately 75 percent for beneficiaries with income below the applicable income thresholds, but it will be reduced for beneficiaries with income above these thresholds. The MMA specified that there be a 5-year transition period to reach full implementation of this provision. However, section 5111 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) (Pub. L. 109-171) modified the transition to a 3-year period.

Section 4732(c) of the BBA added section 1933(c) of the Act, which required the Secretary to allocate money from the Part B trust fund to the State Medicaid programs for the purpose of providing Medicare Part B premium assistance from 1998 through 2002 for the low-income Medicaid beneficiaries who qualify under section 1933 of the Act. This allocation, while not a benefit expenditure, was an expenditure of the trust fund and was included in calculating the Part B actuarial rates through 2002. For 2003 through 2015, the expenditure was made from the trust fund because the allocation was temporarily extended. However, because the extension occurred after the financing was determined, the allocation was not included in the calculation of the financing rates for these years. Section 211 of MACRA permanently extended this expenditure, which is included in the calculation of the Part B actuarial rates for 2016 and subsequent years.

Another provision affecting the calculation of the Part B premium is section 1839(f) of the Act, as amended by section 211 of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA 88) (Pub. L. 100-360). (The Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-234) did not repeal the revisions to section 1839(f) of the Act made by MCCA 88.) Section 1839(f) of the Act, referred to as the “hold-harmless” provision, provides that if an individual is entitled to benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act (the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Benefit and the Disability Insurance Benefit, respectively) and has the Part B premium deducted from these benefit payments, the premium increase will be reduced, if necessary, to avoid causing a decrease in the individual's net monthly payment. This decrease in payment occurs if the increase in the individual's Social Security benefit due to the cost-of-living adjustment under section 215(i) of the Act is less than the increase in the premium. Specifically, the reduction in the premium amount applies if the individual is entitled to benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act for November and December of a particular year and the individual's Part B premiums for December and the following January are deducted from the respective month's section 202 or 223 benefits. The hold-harmless provision does not apply to beneficiaries who are required to pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount.

A check for benefits under section 202 or 223 of the Act is received in the month following the month for which the benefits are due. The Part B premium that is deducted from a particular check is the Part B payment for the month in which the check is received. Therefore, a benefit check for November is not received until December, but December's Part B premium has been deducted from it.

Generally, if a beneficiary qualifies for hold-harmless protection, the reduced premium for the individual for that January and for each of the succeeding 11 months is the greater of either—

• The monthly premium for January reduced as necessary to make the December monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for January, at least equal to the preceding November's monthly benefits, after the deduction of the Part B premium for December; or

• The monthly premium for that individual for that December.

In determining the premium limitations under section 1839(f) of the Act, the monthly benefits to which an individual is entitled under section 202 or 223 of the Act do not include retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work. Also, once the monthly premium amount is established under section 1839(f) of the Act, it will not be changed during the year even if there are retroactive adjustments or payments and deductions on account of work that apply to the individual's monthly benefits.

Individuals who have enrolled in Part B late or who have re-enrolled after the termination of a coverage period are subject to an increased premium under section 1839(b) of the Act. The increase is a percentage of the premium and is based on the new premium rate before any reductions under section 1839(f) of the Act are made.

Section 1839 of the Act, as amended by section 601(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-74), specified that the 2016 actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older be determined as if the hold-harmless provision did not apply. The premium revenue that was lost by using the resulting lower premium (excluding the foregone income-related premium revenue) was replaced by a transfer of general revenue from the Treasury, which will be repaid over time to the general fund.

Starting in 2016, in order to repay the balance due (which includes the transfer amount and the foregone income-related premium revenue), the Part B premium otherwise determined will be increased by $3.00. These repayment amounts will be added to the Part B premium otherwise determined each year and paid back to the general fund of the Treasury and will continue until the balance due is paid back.

High-income enrollees pay the $3 repayment amount plus an additional $1.20, $3.00, $4.80, or $6.60 in repayment as part of the income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) premium dollars, which reduce (dollar for dollar) the amount of general revenue received by Part B from the general fund of the Treasury. Because of this general revenue offset, the repayment IRMAA premium dollars are not included in the direct repayments made to the general fund of the Treasury from Part B in order to avoid a double repayment. (Only the $3.00 monthly repayment amounts are included in the direct repayments).

These repayment amounts will continue until the total amount collected is equal to the beginning balance due. (In the final year of the repayment, the additional amounts may be modified to avoid an overpayment.) The repayment amounts (excluding the repayment amounts for high-income enrollees) are subject to the hold-harmless provision. The beginning balance due was $9,066,409,000, consisting of $1,625,761,000 in foregone income-related premium revenue plus a transfer amount of $7,440,648,000. It is estimated that $1,404,616,000 will have been collected for repayment to the general fund by the end of 2017.

The Medicare Part B monthly actuarial rates applicable for 2018 are $261.90 for enrollees age 65 and over and $295.00 for disabled enrollees under age 65. In section II.B. of this notice, we present the actuarial assumptions and bases from which these rates are derived. The Part B standard monthly premium rate for all enrollees for 2018 is $134.00.

The following are the 2018 Part B monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year), or joint tax returns.

In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by (or on behalf of) beneficiaries who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:

The Part B annual deductible for 2018 is $183.00 for all beneficiaries.

The actuarial assumptions and bases used to determine the monthly actuarial rates and the monthly premium rates for Part B are established by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Office of the Actuary. The estimates underlying these determinations are prepared by actuaries meeting the qualification standards and following the actuarial standards of practice established by the Actuarial Standards Board.

Under section 1839 of the Act, the starting point for determining the standard monthly premium is the amount that would be necessary to finance Part B on an incurred basis. This is the amount of income that would be sufficient to pay for services furnished during that year (including associated administrative costs) even though payment for some of these services will not be made until after the close of the year. The portion of income required to cover benefits not paid until after the close of the year is added to the trust fund and used when needed.

The premium rates are established prospectively and are, therefore, subject to projection error. Additionally, legislation enacted after the financing was established, but effective for the period in which the financing is set, may affect program costs. As a result, the income to the program may not equal incurred costs. Therefore, trust fund assets must be maintained at a level that is adequate to cover an appropriate degree of variation between actual and projected costs, and the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses. Numerous factors determine what level of assets is appropriate to cover variation between actual and projected costs. The three most important of these factors are (1) the difference from prior years between the actual performance of the program and estimates made at the time financing was established; (2) the likelihood and potential magnitude of expenditure changes resulting from enactment of legislation affecting Part B costs in a year subsequent to the establishment of financing for that year; and (3) the expected relationship between incurred and cash expenditures. These factors are analyzed on an ongoing basis, as the trends can vary over time.

Table 1 summarizes the estimated actuarial status of the trust fund as of the end of the financing period for 2016 and 2017.

The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older is one-half of the sum of monthly amounts for (1) the projected cost of benefits; and (2) administrative expenses for each enrollee age 65 and older, after adjustments to this sum to allow for interest earnings on assets in the trust fund and an adequate contingency margin. The contingency margin is an amount appropriate to provide for possible variation between actual and projected costs and to amortize any surplus assets or unfunded liabilities.

The monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and older for 2018 is determined by first establishing per enrollee costs by type of service from program data through 2016 and then projecting these costs for subsequent years. The projection factors used for financing periods from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2018 are shown in Table 2.

As indicated in Table 3, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for enrollees age 65 and over for 2018 is $247.91. Based on current estimates, the assets associated with the aged Medicare beneficiaries at the end of 2017 are not sufficient to cover the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses and to provide for a significant degree of variation between actual and projected costs. Thus, a positive contingency margin is needed. The monthly actuarial rate of $261.90 provides an adjustment of $15.88 for a contingency margin and −$1.89 for interest earnings.

The contingency margin for 2018 is affected by several factors. Starting in 2011, manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs pay a fee that is allocated to the Part B account of the SMI trust. For 2018, the total of these brand-name drug fees is estimated to be $4.1 billion. The contingency margin has been reduced to account for this additional revenue.

Another factor affecting the contingency margin is attributable to the requirement that certain payment incentives, to encourage the development and use of health information technology (HIT) by Medicare physicians, are to be excluded from the premium determination. HIT positive incentive payments or penalties will be directly offset through transfers with the general fund of the Treasury. The monthly actuarial rate includes an adjustment of $0.17 for HIT incentives in 2018.

The traditional goal for the Part B reserve has been that assets minus liabilities at the end of a year should represent between 15 and 20 percent of the following year's total incurred expenditures. To accomplish this goal, a 17-percent reserve ratio, which is a fully adequate contingency reserve level, has been the normal target used to calculate the Part B premium. Assets at the end of 2017 are expected to be below the fully adequate level. The financing rates for 2018 are set to restore the asset level in the Part B account to the fully adequate level by the end of 2018 under current law. The actuarial rate of $261.90 per month for aged beneficiaries, as announced in this notice for 2018, reflects that combined effect of the factors previously described and the projected assumptions listed in Table 2.

Disabled enrollees are those persons under age 65 who are enrolled in Part B because of entitlement to Social Security disability benefits for more than 24 months or because of entitlement to Medicare under the end-stage renal disease (ESRD) program. Projected monthly costs for disabled enrollees (other than those with ESRD) are prepared in a manner parallel to the projection for the aged using appropriate actuarial assumptions (see Table 2). Costs for the ESRD program are projected differently because of the different nature of services offered by the program.

As shown in Table 4, the projected per enrollee amount required to pay for one-half of the total of benefits and administrative costs for disabled enrollees for 2018 is $303.70. The monthly actuarial rate of $295.00 also provides an adjustment of −$2.73 for interest earnings and −$5.97 for a contingency margin, reflecting the same factors described previously for the aged actuarial rate at magnitudes appropriate to the disabled rate determination. Based on current estimates, the assets associated with the disabled Medicare beneficiaries at the end of 2017 are sufficient to cover the amount of incurred, but unpaid, expenses and to provide for a significant degree of variation between actual and projected costs. A negative contingency margin is needed to maintain assets at an appropriate level.

The actuarial rate of $295.00 per month for disabled beneficiaries, as announced in this notice for 2018, reflects the combined net effect of the factors described previously for aged beneficiaries and the projection assumptions listed in Table 2.

Several factors contribute to uncertainty about future trends in medical care costs. It is appropriate to test the adequacy of the rates using alternative cost growth rate assumptions. The results of those assumptions are shown in Table 5. One set represents increases that are higher and, therefore, more pessimistic than the current estimate. The other set represents increases that are lower and, therefore, more optimistic than the current estimate. The values for the alternative assumptions were determined from a statistical analysis of the historical variation in the respective increase factors.

As indicated in Table 5, the monthly actuarial rates would result in an excess of assets over liabilities of $65,598 million by the end of December 2018 under the cost growth rate assumptions shown in Table 2 and assuming that the provisions of current law are fully implemented. This result amounts to 17.8 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.

Assumptions that are somewhat more pessimistic (and that therefore test the adequacy of the assets to accommodate projection errors) produce a surplus of $16,355 million by the end of December 2018 under current law, which amounts to 3.9 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year. Under fairly optimistic assumptions, the monthly actuarial rates would result in a surplus of $114,191 million by the end of December 2018, or 35.6 percent of the estimated total incurred expenditures for the following year.

The sensitivity analysis indicates that the premium and general revenue financing established for 2018, together with existing Part B account assets, would be adequate to cover estimated Part B costs for 2018 under current law should actual costs prove to be somewhat greater than expected.

As determined in accordance with section 1839 of the Act, the following are the 2018 Part B monthly premium rates to be paid by beneficiaries who file either individual tax returns (and are single individuals, heads of households, qualifying widows or widowers with dependent children, or married individuals filing separately who lived apart from their spouses for the entire taxable year), or joint tax returns.

In addition, the monthly premium rates to be paid by beneficiaries who are married and lived with their spouses at any time during the taxable year, but who file separate tax returns from their spouses, are as follows:

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products under an ANDA procedure. ANDA applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is a version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.

TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablets, EQ 5 mg base, EQ 10 mg base, EQ 15 mg base, and EQ 20 mg base, are the subject of NDA 204447, held by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., and initially approved on September 30, 2013. TRINTELLIX is indicated for the treatment of major depressive disorder.

TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablets, EQ 5 mg base, EQ 10 mg base, and EQ 20 mg base, are listed in the “Prescription Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book, and TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, is listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. Takeda Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., has never marketed TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base. In previous instances (see, e.g., 72 FR 9763 (March 5, 2007), 61 FR 25497 (May 21, 1996)), the Agency has determined that, for purposes of §§ 314.161 and 314.162, never marketing an approved drug product is equivalent to withdrawing the drug from sale.

Lachman Consultant Services, Inc.; INC Research, LLC; Locke Lord, LLP; Goodwin Procter, LLP; Cipla USA Inc.; and Apotex, Inc., submitted citizen petitions dated June 29, 2017; July 12, 2017; August 21, 2017; September 25, 2017; September 25, 2017; and September 27, 2017, respectively (Docket Nos. FDA-2017-P-3989, FDA-2017-P-4195, FDA-2017-P-5114, FDA 2017-P-5909, FDA-2017-P-5910, and FDA-2017-P-5967) (collectively, “citizen petitions”). Under 21 CFR 10.30, the citizen petitions requested that the Agency determine whether TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Lachman Consultant Services, Inc., and INC Research also asked FDA to accept ANDAs for all four strengths of TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) tablets: EQ 5 mg base, EQ 10 mg base, EQ 15 mg base, and EQ 20 mg base. Because TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablets, EQ 5 mg base, EQ 10 mg base, and EQ 20 mg base, are not listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book, these strengths do not require a determination as to whether they were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

After considering the citizen petitions and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioners have identified no data or other information suggesting that TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events. We have reviewed the available evidence and determined that this drug product was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.

Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that refer to TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablet, EQ 15 mg base (as well as those that refer to TRINTELLIX (vortioxetine hydrobromide) oral tablets, EQ 5 mg base, EQ 10 mg base, and EQ 20 mg base), may be approved by the Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Section 201 of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-250) amended section 704 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by adding subsection (g) (21 U.S.C. 374(g)). This amendment authorized FDA to establish a voluntary third-party inspection program applicable to manufacturers of class II or class III medical devices who meet certain eligibility criteria. In 2007, the program was modified by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 by revising eligibility criteria and by no longer requiring prior approval by FDA. To reflect the revisions, FDA modified the title of the collection of information and on March 2, 2009, issued a guidance entitled “Manufacturer's Notification of the Intent to Use an Accredited Person Under the Accredited Persons Inspection Program Authorized by Section 228 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.” This guidance superseded the Agency's previous guidance regarding requests for third-party inspection and may be found on the internet at https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm085187.htm. The guidance is intended to assist device establishments in determining whether they are eligible to participate in the AP Program and, if so, how to submit notification of their intent to use the program. The AP Program applies to manufacturers who currently market their medical devices in the United States and who also market or plan to market their devices in foreign countries. Such manufacturers may need current inspections of their establishments to operate in global commerce.

There are approximately 8,000 foreign and 10,000 domestic manufacturers of medical devices. Approximately 5,000 of these firms only manufacture class I devices and are, therefore, not eligible for the AP Program. In addition, 40 percent of the domestic firms do not export devices and therefore are not eligible to participate in the AP Program. Further, 10 to 15 percent of the firms are not eligible due to the results of their previous inspection. FDA estimates there are 4,000 domestic manufacturers and 4,000 foreign manufacturers that are eligible for inclusion under the AP Program. Based on communications with industry, FDA estimates that on an annual basis approximately 10 of these manufacturers may use an AP in any given year.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Section 513(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(g)) provides a means for obtaining the Agency's views about the classification and regulatory requirements that may be applicable to a particular device. Section 513(g) provides that, within 60 days of the receipt of a written request of any person for information respecting the class in which a device has been classified or the requirements applicable to a device under the FD&C Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide such person a written statement of the classification (if any) of such device and the requirements of the FD&C Act applicable to the device.

The guidance document entitled “FDA and Industry Procedures for Section 513(g) Requests for Information Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff” establishes procedures for submitting, reviewing, and responding to requests for information respecting the class in which a device has been classified or the requirements applicable to a device under the FD&C Act that are submitted in accordance with section 513(g) of the FD&C Act. FDA does not review data related to substantial equivalence or safety and effectiveness in a 513(g) request for information. FDA's responses to 513(g) requests for information are not device classification decisions and do not constitute FDA clearance or approval for marketing. Classification decisions and clearance or approval for marketing require submissions under different sections of the FD&C Act.

Additionally, the FD&C Act, as amended by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85), requires FDA to collect user fees for 513(g) requests for information. The guidance document entitled “Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; User Fees for 513(g) Requests for Information” assists FDA staff and regulated industry by describing the user fees associated with 513(g) requests. The Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet (Form FDA 3601), which accompanies the supplemental material described in this information collection is approved under OMB control number 0910-0511 and expires August 31, 2019.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Respondents of this collection of information are mostly device manufacturers; however, anyone may submit a 513(g) request for information. The total number of annual responses is based on the average number of 513(g) requests received each year by the Agency.

Intended Recipient of the Award: National Network for Oral Health Access.

Amount of Non-Competitive Awards: $250,000.

Budget Periods of Supplemental Funding: July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018.

CFDA Number: 93.110.

Authority: Special Projects of Regional and National Significance program (Social Security Act, Title V, § 501(a)(2) (42 U.S.C. 701(a)(2)).

Justification: The National Network for Oral Health Access (NNOHA) supports goals to improve access to oral health care, increase awareness of the connection between oral health and overall health, prevent disease and promote oral health, and improve health literacy to health providers and patients alike. HRSA developed a core set of oral health clinical competencies for non-dental providers as part of its Integration of Oral Health and Primary Care Practice (IOHPCP) initiative in response to recommendations from two Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports: Advancing Oral Health in America and Improving Access to Oral Health Care for Vulnerable and Underserved Populations. NNOHA participated in the IOHPCP initiative and in fiscal year (FY) 2012 received supplemental funding (U30CS09745-05-02) to implement a pilot project in safety net settings to inform the impact and effectiveness of oral health core clinical competencies and inter-professional collaboration in primary care settings. The goal of the project was to increase integration of oral health and primary health care. NNOHA published the pilot project results in a user guide entitled, User's Guide for Implementation of inter-professional oral health core clinical competencies and continues to provide technical assistance to health centers and training on oral health integration and primary care practice.

The Joint Explanatory Statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of FY 2017 encouraged HRSA to allocate $250,000 for demonstration projects to support the implementation of integrating oral health and primary care projects. The projects are to model the core clinical oral health competencies for non-dental providers that HRSA published and initially tested in its 2014 report, Integration of Oral Health and Primary Care Practice. In order to achieve this goal, HRSA will provide supplemental funding to the NNOHA to advance and expand the implementation of oral health core clinical competencies in health centers, focusing on services for pregnant women and children. Additionally, these demonstration projects will directly align with four HRSA recommendations for effectively incorporating the competencies into clinical practice as described in the 2014 Integrating Oral Health and Primary Care Practice report. This activity is consistent with the current work plan of NNOHA and includes providing training and technical assistance on IOHPCP. NNOHA's primary roles are to coordinate all activities at the planning, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination stages, as well as provide technical assistance and training to participating HCs. NNOHA shall select no fewer than six HCs, which it supports as part of the current HRSA-funded National Training and Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (U30CS29051). NNOHA will assure that each HC will propose, implement, and track data for an innovative inter-professional oral health project that measurably increases the adoption of the core clinical oral health competencies among non-dental providers in the delivery of care to pregnant women and children.

The Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP), Enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (eFMAP), and disaster-recovery FMAP adjustments for Fiscal Year 2019 have been calculated pursuant to the Social Security Act (the Act). These percentages will be effective from October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. This notice announces the calculated FMAP rates, in accordance with sections 1101(a)(8) and 1905(b) of the Act, that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will use in determining the amount of federal matching for state medical assistance (Medicaid), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Contingency Funds, Child Support Enforcement collections, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund, Title IV-E Foster Care Maintenance payments, Adoption Assistance payments and Kinship Guardianship Assistance payments, and the eFMAP rates for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) expenditures. Table 1 gives figures for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. This notice reminds states of available disaster-recovery FMAP adjustments for qualifying states, and adjustments available for states meeting requirements for negative growth in total state personal income. At this time, no states qualify for such adjustments.

This notice also contains the increased eFMAPs for CHIP as authorized under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) for fiscal years 2016 through 2019 (October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2019).

Programs under title XIX of the Act exist in each jurisdiction. Programs under titles I, X, and XIV operate only in Guam and the Virgin Islands. The percentages in this notice apply to state expenditures for most medical assistance and child health assistance, and assistance payments for certain social services. The Act provides separately for federal matching of administrative costs. Sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary of HHS to publish the FMAP rates each year. The Secretary calculates the percentages, using formulas in sections 1905(b) and 1101(a)(8), and calculations by the Department of Commerce of average income per person in each state and for the Nation as a whole. The percentages must fall within the upper and lower limits specified in section 1905(b) of the Act. The percentages for the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands are specified in statute, and thus are not based on the statutory formula that determines the percentages for the 50 states.

Section 1905(b) of the Act specifies the formula for calculating FMAPs as follows:

Section 1905(y) of the Act, as added by section 2001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Affordable Care Act”), provides for a significant increase in the FMAP for medical assistance expenditures for individuals determined eligible under the new adult group in the state and who will be considered to be “newly eligible” in 2014, as defined in section 1905(y)(2)(A) of the Act. This newly eligible FMAP is 100 percent for Calendar Years 2014, 2015, and 2016, gradually declining to 90 percent in 2020 where it remains indefinitely. In addition, section 1905(z) of the Act, as added by section 10201 of the Affordable Care Act, provides that states that had expanded substantial coverage to low-income parents and nonpregnant adults without children prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, referred to as “expansion states,” shall receive an enhanced FMAP beginning in 2014 for medical assistance expenditures for nonpregnant childless adults who may be required to enroll in benchmark coverage. These provisions are discussed in more detail in the Medicaid Eligibility proposed rule published on August 17, 2011 (76 FR 51172) and the final rule published on March 23, 2012 (77 FR 17143). This notice is not intended to set forth the newly eligible or expansion state FMAP rates.

For purposes of Title XIX (Medicaid) of the Social Security Act, the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), defined in section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act, for each state beginning with fiscal year 2006 is subject to an adjustment pursuant to section 614 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA), Public Law 111-3. Section 614 of CHIPRA stipulates that a state's FMAP under Title XIX (Medicaid) must be adjusted in two situations.

In the first situation, if a state experiences positive growth in total personal income and an employer in that state has made a significantly disproportionate contribution to a pension or insurance fund, the state's FMAP must be adjusted. Employer pension and insurance fund contributions are significantly disproportionate if the increase in contributions exceeds 25 percent of the increase in total personal income in that state. A Federal Register Notice with comment period was issued on June 7, 2010 (75 FR 32182) announcing the methodology for calculating this adjustment; a final notice was issued on October 15, 2010 (75 FR 63480). A second situation arises if a state experiences negative growth in total personal income. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2006, section 614(b)(3) of CHIPRA specifies that certain employer pension or insurance fund contributions shall be disregarded when computing the per capita income used to calculate the FMAP for states with negative growth in total personal income. In that instance, for the purposes of calculating the FMAP, for a calendar year in which a state's total personal income has declined, the portion of an employer pension and insurance fund contribution that exceeds 125 percent of the amount of the employer contribution in the previous calendar year shall be disregarded.

We request that states follow the same methodology to determine potential FMAP adjustments for negative growth in total personal income that HHS employs to make adjustments to the FMAP for states experiencing significantly disproportionate pension or insurance contributions. See also the information described in the January 21, 2014 Federal Register notice (79 FR 3385). This notice does not contain an FY 2019 adjustment for a major statewide disaster for any state (territories are not eligible for FMAP adjustments) because no state's FMAP decreased by at least three percentage points from FY 2018 to FY 2019.

Section 2105(b) of the Act specifies the formula for calculating the eFMAP rates as follows:

In addition, Section 2105(b) of the Social Security Act, as amended by Section 2101 of the Affordable Care Act, increases the eFMAP for states by 23 percentage points:

The names and biographies of the Committee members are available at https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/history-development/healthy-people-2030-advisory-committee.

Purpose of Meeting: Through the Healthy People initiative, HHS leverages scientific insights and lessons from the past decade, along with new knowledge of current data, trends, and innovations, to develop the next iteration of national health promotion and disease prevention objectives. Healthy People provides science-based, 10-year national objectives for promoting health and preventing disease. Since 1979, Healthy People has set and monitored national health objectives that meet a broad range of health needs, encourage collaboration across sectors, guide individuals toward making informed health decisions, and measure the impact of our prevention and health promotion activities. Healthy People 2030 health objectives will reflect assessments of major risks to health and wellness, changing public health priorities, and emerging technologies related to our nation's health preparedness and prevention.

Public Participation at Meeting: Members of the public are invited to join the online Committee meeting. There will be no opportunity for oral public comments during this online Committee meeting. However, written comments are welcome throughout the entire development process of the national health promotion and disease prevention objectives for 2030 and may be emailed to [email protected].

To join the Committee meeting, individuals must pre-register at the Healthy People Web site at http://www.healthypeople.gov. Participation in the meeting is limited. Registrations will be accepted until maximum webinar capacity is reached, and must be completed by 9:00 a.m. ET on December 11, 2017. A waiting list will be maintained should registrations exceed capacity, and those individuals will be contacted as additional space for the meeting becomes available. Registration questions may be directed to [email protected].

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300u and 42 U.S.C. 217a. The Secretary's Advisory Committee on National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives for 2030 is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App.) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

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

The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.

We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0125], and must be received by January 22, 2018.

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

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

Title: United States Coast Guard Academy Introduction Mission Program Application and Supplemental Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1625-0121.

Summary: This collection contains the application and all supplemental forms required to be considered as an applicant to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy Introduction Mission (AIM) Program.

Need: The information is needed to select applicants for participation in a one-week summer recruiting and training program for prospective Cadets interested in attending the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.

Forms: USCGA-AIM1, Travel Update Form; USCGA-AIM2, Scholarship Request Form; USCGA-AIM3, Medical Release Form.

Respondents: Approximately 2,000 applicants apply annually to attend the AIM Program. Approximately 3,000 individuals will submit letters of recommendation for these applicants.

Frequency: Applicants must apply only once per year.

Hour Burden Estimate: The annual burden is estimated at 9,000 hours.

Notice is hereby given that on November 15, 2017, CBP issued a final determination concerning the country of origin of roasted coffee which may be offered to the United States Government under an undesignated government procurement contract. This final determination, HQ H291135, was issued at the request of Keurig Green Mountain, under procedures set forth at 19 CFR part 177, subpart B, which implements Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-18). In the final determination, CBP has concluded that, based upon the facts presented, the roasting of raw green coffee beans substantially transforms the coffee beans into a product of the country where the raw green coffee beans are roasted, i.e. Canada or the United States, for purposes of U.S. Government procurement.

Section 177.29, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.29), provides that notice of final determinations shall be published in the Federal Register within 60 days of the date the final determination is issued. Section 177.30, CBP Regulations (19 CFR 177.30), provides that any party-at-interest, as defined in 19 CFR 177.22(d), may seek judicial review of a final determination within 30 days of publication of such determination in the Federal Register.

This is in response to your request of September 29, 2017, on behalf of your client, Keurig Green Mountain (“Keurig”), requesting a final determination concerning roasted coffee for purposes of government procurement under Title III of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq.). This final determination concerns the country of origin of roasted coffee produced from raw green coffee beans roasted in Canada or the United States. As an importer of this merchandise, Keurig is a party-at-interest within the meaning of 19 CFR 177.23(a) and is entitled to request this final determination.

The coffee will be produced from raw green coffee beans imported into either Canada or the United States. The green coffee beans will either be in their natural caffeinated state or decaffeinated. The decaffeination of the beans is a separate process occurring in a country on the Designated Country list in 48 CFR 52.225-5(a) prior to importation into Canada or the United States. Once imported, the green beans, caffeinated and decaffeinated, undergo a roasting and packaging process. Keurig cleans, blends and roasts the beans. A small percentage of beans are sprayed with flavoring ingredients. After the roasting and flavoring processes are complete, Keurig grinds, degasses and packages the coffee beans for sale. All of the processes after receipt of the green beans, caffeinated or decaffeinated, occur in the country of receipt, i.e., Canada or the United States. We note, in some cases the coffee will remain in bean form.

Whether the raw green coffee beans are substantially transformed by the roasting process for purposes of United States Government procurement.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issues country of origin advisory rulings and final determinations as to whether an article is or would be a product of a designated country or instrumentality for the purpose of granting waivers of certain “Buy American” restrictions in United States law or practice for products offered for sale to the United States Government, pursuant to subpart B of Part 177, 19 CFR 177.21 et seq., which implements Title III, Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2511-2518).

The rule of origin set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2518(4)(B) states:

An article is a product of a country or instrumentality only if (i) it is wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of that country or instrumentality, or (ii) in the case of an article which consists in whole or in part of materials from another country or instrumentality, it has been substantially transformed into a new and different article of commerce with a name, character, or use distinct from that of the article or articles from which it was so transformed.

In rendering advisory rulings and final determinations for purposes of United States Government procurement, CBP applies the provisions of subpart B of Part 177 consistent with the Federal Procurement Regulations. See 19 CFR 177.21. In this regard, CBP recognizes that the Federal Acquisition Regulations restrict the U.S. Government's purchase of products to U.S.-made or designated country end products for acquisitions subject to the TAA. See 48 CFR 25.403(c)(1). The Federal Acquisition Regulations define “U.S.-made end product” as:

See 48 CFR 25.003.

For more than 30 years, CBP has recognized that roasting green coffee beans substantially transforms the beans into a new and different article of commerce. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 733563, dated June 24, 1991, citing HQ 070395, dated June 6, 1983; HQ 722980, dated October 17, 1983; HQ 722360, dated June 6, 1984; and, HQ 725641, dated July 25, 1984. These rulings from 1983 and 1984 concluded that roasting, or roasting and blending, of coffee was sufficient to change its character and use and thus effect a substantial transformation. Based on this long held position, depending on where the coffee beans are roasted, the roasting of the green coffee beans substantially transforms the coffee beans into either a product of Canada, or a product of the United States, for purposes of government procurement.

As the decaffeination occurs prior to the roasting of the green beans, we see no need to address it. In addition, as all of the other processing, i.e., flavoring, grinding, degassing and packaging, occur in the same country as roasting, there is no need to address these additional processes. The resulting roasted coffee, ground or in bean form, is a product of Canada or the United States.

Based on the facts and analysis set forth above, for United States Government procurement purposes, the country of origin of the roasted coffee, in ground or bean form, is the country where the raw green coffee beans are roasted, i.e., Canada or the United States.

Notice of this final determination will be given in the Federal Register, as required by 19 CFR 177.29. Any party-at-interest other than the party which requested this final determination may request, pursuant to 19 CFR 177.31, that CBP reexamine the matter anew and issue a new final determination. Pursuant to 19 CFR 177.30, any party-at-interest may, within 30 days after publication of the Federal Register notice referenced above, seek judicial review of this final determination before the Court of International Trade.

This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

Title of Information Collection: Implementation Phase Evaluation of LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Prevention Initiative.

OMB Approval Number: NA.

Type of Request: New.

Form Number: NA.

Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The LGBTQ Youth Homelessness Prevention Initiative began in the summer of 2013 as part of a federal interagency initiative to prevent homelessness among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, and to intervene early when homelessness occurs for these youths. Federal partners from the U.S. Departments of Education, Health, and Juvenile Justice, as well as the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, support this HUD initiative. The initiative supports the federal goal to end youth homelessness and contributes to the development of a model for preventing LGBT youth homelessness that other communities can replicate. Two communities participate in this initiative and receive technical assistance (TA) to support their initiative planning and implementation.

This request for OMB clearance covers the implementation phase which will document the approach and experiences of both communities as they have implemented their local plan. Furthermore, this review will examine the resources required to carry out implementation, what worked well, what challenges emerged and how they were addressed, lessons learned and recommendations both sites offer for potential replication. To produce this information, HUD will collect quantitative and qualitative data from primary sources using four methods: Interviews, surveys, focus groups, and document review. Participants will consist of the local initiative leads as well as individuals involved in local initiative steering committees and subcommittees and community members associated with the initiative.

This is a re-submission of a PRA package that had previously been withdrawn by the Department to undertake additional review. The original 60-day Notice was published on September 20, 2016, and can be found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/20/2016-22580/60-day-notice-of-proposed-information-collection-implementation-phase-review-of-the-lesbian-gay.

Respondents (i.e. affected public): Organizations participating in the two local initiatives, including local lead organizations and participants on the local steering committees and subcommittees.

Implementation Phase Interview: Local leads, steering committee members and subcommittee members, community members,

Implementation Phase Focus Group: Local leads, steering committee members and subcommittee members, community members,

Implementation Phase Survey: Local leads, steering committee members and subcommittee members, community members.

This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

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

(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

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

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed IC that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. 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.

Abstract: The National Map Corps (TNMCorps) is the name of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Geospatial Program (NGP) project that encourages citizen participation in volunteer map data collection activities. TNMCorps uses crowdsourcing—new technologies and Internet services to georeference structure points and share this information with others on map-based Internet platforms—to produce volunteered geographic information (VGI). People participating in the crowd sourcing will be considered part of the TNMCorps.

In general, the National Structures Dataset (NSD) has been populated with the best available national data. This data has been exposed for initial improvement by TNMCorps volunteers via the online Map Editor (the instrument). In addition, the data goes through a tiered-editing process, which includes Peer Review and Advanced Editors. At each stage the data is passed through an automatic “magic filter” to look for data issues before being submitted into the NSD. In addition data goes through sampling for quality assurance procedures.

Once part of the NSD, the data are then available to the USGS and to the public at no cost via The National Map and ultimately US Topo.

Data quality studies in 2012 and 2014 showed that the volunteers' actions were accurate and exceeded USGS quality standards. Volunteer-collected data showed an improvement in both location and attribute accuracy for existing data points. Completeness, or the extent to which all appropriate features were identified and recorded, was also improved.

Title of Collection: The National Map Corps—Volunteered Geographic Information Project.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0111.

Form Number: NA.

Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

Affected Public: General Public.

Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Intermittent, with an estimated 840 participants annually.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: 100,000.

Estimated Time per Response: 12 minutes.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 20,000.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).

We, the USGS, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.

We are soliciting comments on the proposed IC that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you 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.

Abstract: As National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) stakeholders move forward with the implementation of the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO) 191** series of geospatial metadata standards, there is increasing demand for information about applications/editors that can be used to create ISO compliant metadata records. The USGS, through the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Office of the Secretariat (www.fgdc.gov), proposes development of an online registration system for developers of ISO Geospatial Metadata Editors to voluntarily describe their metadata tools. Developers will be asked to include information such as features of the editor, its functionality, supported standards, and point of contact information through a login-based, online form. The FGDC Metadata Working Group (MWG) (https://www.fgdc.gov/organization/working-groups-subcommittees/mwg/index_html), whose membership represents Federal, State, Local and Tribal governments and the Private Sector, has requested the development of the registry as a useful tool to learn about available ISO Geospatial Metadata Editors. Because the information about the editors may be of interest or utility to others implementing ISO geospatial metadata standards, the FGDC will make the information collected available on the Web in the form of a simple registry-type database. FGDC MWG members as well as non FGDC MWG members including geospatial metadata implementers from private sector, academia, all forms of government, and the general public, will have read-only access to the editor information published in the registry.

Title: ISO Geospatial Metadata Editors Registry.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0110.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Request: Renewal of existing information collection.

Affected Public: Federal, State, Local and Tribal governments, Private Sector, and others involved in the development of ISO geospatial metadata.

Respondent's Obligation: None. Participation is voluntary.

Frequency of Collection: Following its initial collection from editor developers, the information will be reviewed at least annually. As part of the annual review, all editor developers listed in the registry will be contacted and requested to update their information, if needed, via the login-based online form. Additionally, all NSDI stakeholders will be reminded via Web posting at the FGDC Web site (www.fgdc.gov) and community-of-practice networking that new editors may be added to the registry.

Estimated Total Number of Annual Responses: Approximately 5.

Estimated Time per Response: We estimate that it will take one hour per person to document a single editor for inclusion in the registry. In future years, review of editor information to ensure currency or identification of new editors is expected to require de minimis effort.

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5 hours.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: There are no “non-hour cost” burdens associated with this IC.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The authorities for this action are the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)

Pursuant to the Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-277, 67 Stat. 586, 18 U.S.C. 1161, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), the Secretary of the Interior shall certify and publish in the Federal Register notice of adopted liquor control ordinances for the purpose of regulating liquor transactions in Indian country. On June 7, 2017, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Community Council duly adopted the amendment to the Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance by Ordinance SRO-492-2017. This Federal Register notice amends the existing Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, enacted by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Council, which was published in the Federal Register on January 21, 2016 (81 FR 3453). By the delegated authority contained in 3 IAM 4.4, the Western Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, approved the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's amendment on August 9, 2017.

This notice is published in accordance with the authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. I certify that the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona, duly adopted this amendment to the Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance on June 7, 2017.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Section 14-25, is amended to add the new subsection (f) as follows:

(f) Alcoholic beverages may be possessed and consumed (and not sold) at a private event of a bona fide commercial entity who is a lessee within the Community's designated area as defined by Section 14-54, one-time a calendar year, if the following conditions are met:

(1) The host is serving alcohol beverages free of charge and there is no fee to be admitted into the private event;

(2) the event is private and only open to a known group of guests (and not the public)

(3) the host is a commercial tenant within the Community;

(4) the host has a Business License with the Community;

(5) the host notifies the Office at least 30 days prior to the event by the filing of a notification form as prescribed by the Office, and that provides specifics as to the private event, agrees in writing to follow all applicable Community laws and Arizona State alcoholic beverage laws, and also agrees to assumes all risk and liability for any damages that may occur as a result of this event;

(6) the Office is aware in writing of the event at least 30 days prior to it being held and is able to provide notice of the event to the SRPD and any other necessary departments; and

(7) the host agrees to obtain a special use permit or other licensing depending on the size and nature of the event (including any additional costs to provide police or other staffing), at the direction of the Office.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Section 14-55(6)(b)(1)-(3) shall be repealed and replaced with new Sections 14-55(6)(b)(1)-(5) as follows:

1. A special event license is a temporary license and authorizes the sale of liquor for a limited time in the Community;

2. An applicant may be issued a special event license for no more than 10 consecutive days per license during the course of a calendar year;

3. An unlicensed premises may hold up to 12 special events per calendar year, and a licensed location or government owned location may hold unlimited events per year;

4. A special event license shall only be available to a business that is not in the primary business of selling food or alcohol;

5. Special Event licenses shall only be issued if it also meets the requirements of the Arizona liquor law requirements.

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Section 14-64(5) shall add the following category as (h):

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Section 14-102(f)'s first sentence shall be amended to read as follows (subsections (f)(1)-(4) shall remain the same).

It shall be unlawful for a licensee or an employee of the licensee to consume alcoholic beverages on or about the licensed premises, or to be intoxicated or in a disorderly condition during such periods as when such person is working at the licensed premises, except that:

The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community's Chapter 14, Alcoholic Beverage Control Ordinance, Section 14-102 shall have the following 102(cc)-(mm) added.

(cc) It is unlawful for a person to take or solicit orders for alcoholic beverages unless the person is a salesman or solicitor of a licensed wholesaler, a salesman or solicitor of a distiller, brewer, vintner, importer or broker or a registered retail agent.

(dd) It is unlawful for any retail licensee to purchase alcoholic beverages from any person other than a solicitor or salesman of a wholesaler licensed by the State of Arizona.

(ee) It is unlawful for a retailer to acquire an interest in property owned, occupied or used by a wholesaler in the wholesaler's business, or in a license with respect to the premises of the wholesaler.

(ff) It is unlawful for an on-sale retailer to permit an employee or for an employee to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy the employee drinks or anything of value in the licensed premises during the employee's working hours. No on-sale retailer shall serve employees or allow a patron of the establishment to give alcoholic beverages to, purchase liquor for or drink liquor with any employee during the employee's working hours.

(gg) It is unlawful for a person to have possession of or to transport alcoholic beverages which are manufactured in a distillery, winery, brewery or rectifying plant contrary to the laws of the United States, the Community and the State of Arizona. Any property used in transporting such alcoholic beverages shall be forfeited, seized and disposed of.

(hh) It is unlawful for a person who is obviously intoxicated to buy or attempt to buy alcoholic beverages from a licensee or employee of a licensee or to consume alcoholic beverages on a licensed premises.

(ii) It is unlawful for a licensee to use a vending machine for the purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages.

(jj) It is unlawful for a retailer to knowingly allow a customer to bring alcoholic beverages onto the licensed premises.

(kk) It is unlawful for a person to purchase, offer for sale or use any device, machine or process which mixes alcoholic beverages with pure oxygen or another gas to produce a vaporized product for the purpose of consumption by inhalation or to allow patrons to use any item for the consumption of vaporized alcoholic beverages.

(ll) It is unlawful for a retail licensee or an employee of a retail licensee to sell alcoholic beverages to a person if the retail licensee or employee knows the person intends to resell the alcoholic beverages.

(mm) It is unlawful for a person to reuse a bottle or other container authorized for use by the laws of the United States or any agency of the United States for the packaging of distilled spirits or for a person to increase the original contents or a portion of the original contents remaining in a liquor bottle or other authorized container by adding any substance.

Procedural summary: Effective May 17, 2017, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 202(b) of the Trade Act to determine whether Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. The Commission instituted the investigation in response to a petition, as amended and properly filed on May 17, 2017 by Suniva, Inc. (“Suniva”), a producer of CSPV cells and CSPV modules in the United States. On May 25, 2017, SolarWorld Americas publicly stated its support for the petition as a co-petitioner.

Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of the scheduling of public hearings to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register (82 FR 25331 (June 1, 2017)). The public hearing in connection with the injury phase of the investigation was held on August 15, 2017, in Washington, DC, and the public hearing in connection with the remedy phase of the investigation was held on October 3, 2017, in Washington, DC; all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission voted with respect to injury issues on September 22, 2017, and with respect to remedy issues on October 31, 2017.

The Commission submitted its report to the President on November 13, 2017. The report included the Commission's injury determination and remedy recommendations, an explanation of the basis for the determination and remedy recommendations, and a summary of the information obtained in the investigation.

Determination: On the basis of information developed in the subject investigation, the Commission determined pursuant to section 202(b) of the Trade Act of 1974 that crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products) (“CSPV products”) are being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article.

Having made an affirmative injury determination pursuant to section 202(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, the Commission was required to make certain additional findings under the implementing statutes of certain free trade agreements (“FTAs”) or under statutory provisions related to certain preferential trade programs. Under section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3371(a)), the Commission found that imports of CSPV products from Mexico account for a substantial share of total imports and contribute importantly to the serious injury caused by imports. Under 19 U.S.C. 3371(a), the Commission also found, with Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein dissenting, that imports of CSPV products from Canada do not account for a substantial share of total imports and do not contribute importantly to the serious injury caused by imports. The Commission further found that imports of CSPV products from Korea are a substantial cause of threat of serious injury, but that imports of CSPV products from Australia, the U.S.-Dominican Republic—Central America Free Trade Agreement (“CAFTA-DR”) countries, Colombia, Jordan, Panama, Peru, and Singapore, individually, are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof, under the respective implementing legislation for the FTAs with these countries. See 19 U.S.C. 2112 note (Jordan); 19 U.S.C. 3805 note (Australia, Colombia, Korea, Panama, Peru, Singapore); 19 U.S.C. 4101 (CAFTA-DR). The Commission also found that the serious injury substantially caused by imports to the domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive article does not result from the reduction or elimination of any duty provided for under the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement or from duty-free treatment provided for under the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (“CBERA”) provisions of the Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Program or the Generalized System of Preferences (“GSP”) program. 19 U.S.C. 2112 note (Israel); 19 U.S.C. 2703(e) (CBERA); 19 U.S.C. 2253(e)(6) (GSP).

Remedy recommendations. In order to address the serious injury to the domestic industry producing CSPV products and be most effective in facilitating the efforts of the domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition, the Commission recommended a series of actions.

With regard to CSPV cells, Chairman Schmidtlein recommends a tariff-rate quota with an in-quota tariff rate of 10 percent ad valorem and an in-quota volume level of 0.5 gigawatts. For U.S. imports of cells that exceed the 0.5 gigawatts volume level, she recommends a tariff rate of 30 percent ad valorem. Chairman Schmidtlein recommends that this tariff-rate quota be implemented for four years and that the in-quota level be incrementally raised and the tariff rate be incrementally reduced during the remedy period. With regard to CSPV modules, she recommends an ad valorem tariff rate of 35 percent to be incrementally reduced during the 4-year remedy period. Chairman Schmidtlein also recommends that the President initiate international negotiations to address the underlying cause of the increase in imports of CSPV products and alleviate the serious injury thereof. Having made findings that U.S. imports from Australia, the CAFTA-DR countries, Colombia, Israel, Jordan, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and the beneficiary countries under CBERA were not a substantial cause of the serious injury experienced by the domestic industry, Chairman Schmidtlein recommends to the President that U.S. imports from these countries be excluded from the remedy.

Vice Chairman David S. Johanson and Commissioner Irving A. Williamson recommend that for a 4-year period the President impose (1) a tariff-rate quota on imports of CSPV products in cell form, and (2) increased rates of duty on imports of CSPV products in module form. For imports of CSPV products in cell form, they recommend an additional 30 percent ad valorem tariff on imports in excess of 1 gigawatt. In each subsequent year, they recommend that this tariff rate decrease by five percentage points and that the in-quota amount increase by 0.2 gigawatts. The rate of duty on in-quota CSPV products in cell form will remain unchanged. For imports of CSPV products in module form, Vice Chairman Johanson and Commissioner Williamson recommend an additional 30 percent ad valorem tariff, to be phased down by five percentage points per year in each of the subsequent years. Having made a negative finding with respect to imports from Canada under section 311(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, they recommend that such imports be excluded from the above tariff-rate quota and increased rates of duty. Further, Vice Chairman Johanson and Commissioner Williamson recommend that the above tariff-rate quota and increased rates of duty not apply to imports from the following countries with which the United States has FTAs: Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Singapore. They also recommend that the tariff-rate quota and increased rates of duty not apply to imports from the CBERA beneficiary countries. Vice Chairman Johanson and Commissioner Williamson recommend that the President direct the United States Department of Labor and the United States Department of Commerce to provide expedited consideration of any application for trade adjustment assistance for workers and/or firms that are affected by subject imports. They recommend the President's consideration of the product exclusions requested by Respondents to which Petitioners have not objected and have indicated they would work to draft appropriate product-specific exclusions. Finally, they recommend that the President also consider any appropriate funding mechanisms that may facilitate a positive adjustment to import competition.

Commissioner Meredith M. Broadbent recommends that the President impose a quantitative restriction on imports of CSPV products into the United States, including cells and modules, for a four-year period, administered on a global basis. She recommends that the quantitative restriction be set at 8.9 gigawatts in the first year and increase by 1.4 gigawatts each subsequent year. In accordance with section 1102 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2581) and the President's authority in section 203(a)(3)(F) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2253(a)(3)(F)), she also recommends that the President administer these quantitative restrictions by selling import licenses at public auction at a minimum price of one cent per watt. She recommends that the President, to the extent permitted by law, authorize the use of funds equal to the amount generated by import license auctions to provide development assistance to domestic CSPV product manufacturers for the duration of the remedy period, such as through authorized programs at the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Commissioner Broadbent also recommends that the President implement other appropriate adjustment measures, including the provision of trade adjustment assistance by the United States Department of Labor and the United States Department of Commerce to workers and firms affected by import competition. Having made an affirmative finding with respect to imports from Mexico under section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, she recommends that the President allocate no less than 720 megawatts to Mexico during the first year within the global quantitative restriction, which would expand by 115 megawatts each year. Having made a negative finding with respect to imports from Canada under section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act, Commissioner Broadbent recommends that such imports be excluded from the quantitative restriction. Furthermore, she recommends that this quantitative restriction not apply to imports from Australia, the CAFTA-DR countries, Colombia, Israel, Jordan, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and the CBERA beneficiary countries.

Availability of the public version of the report. The public version of the Commission's report containing the Commission's injury determination, its remedy recommendations, an explanation of the basis for its injury determination and remedy recommendations, and a summary of the information obtained in the investigation is contained in Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or Fully Assembled into Other Products), Inv. No. 201-TA-75, USITC Publication 4739 (Nov. 2017).

Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that if the Commission finds a violation it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States:

The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in its investigations. Accordingly, parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). In addition, members of the public are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the administrative law judge's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on November 14, 2017. Comments should address whether issuance of a remedial order in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended order are used in the United States;

(ii) Identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;

(iii) Indicate the extent to which like or directly competitive articles are produced in the United States or are otherwise available in the United States, with respect to the articles potentially subject to the recommended orders;

(iv) Indicate whether Complainant, Complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and

(v) Explain how the recommended order would impact consumers in the United States.

Written submissions must be filed by the close of business on December 21, 2017.

Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadline stated above and submit eight true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary pursuant to Commission Rule 210.4(f), CFR part 210.4(f). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1023”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/secretary/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary at (202) 205-2000.

Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR part 210.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is sought will be treated accordingly. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,1 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All non-confidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.

This action is taken under authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

This ICR seeks to extend PRA authority for the Current Population Survey (CPS)—Basic Labor Force information collection. The labor force data collected in the CPS help to determine the employment situation of specific population groups as well as general trends in employment and unemployment. The survey is the only source of monthly data on total employment and unemployment. The Employment Situation Report contains data from this survey, and it is designated a Principle Federal Economic Indicator; moreover, the survey also yields data on the basic status and characteristics of persons not in the labor force. CPS data are used monthly, in conjunction with data from other sources, to analyze the extent to which, and with what success, the various components of the American population are participating in the economic life of the nation. This information collection is authorized by 13 U.S.C. 182 and 29 U.S.C. 2.

This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. The DOL obtains OMB approval for this information collection under Control Number 1220-0100.

OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal, and the current approval for this collection is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017. The DOL seeks to extend PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) more years, without any change to existing requirements. The DOL notes that existing information collection requirements submitted to the OMB receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2017 (82 FR 27873).

Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB Control Number 1220-0100. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Agency: DOL-BLS.

Title of Collection: Current Population Survey—Basic Labor Force.

OMB Control Number: 1220-0100.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 53,000.

Total Estimated Number of Responses: 636,000.

Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 80,560 hours.

Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

1. Background Information

During the legislative approval process for the CAFTA-DR, the Administration and the Congress reached an understanding on the need to support labor capacity-building efforts linked to recommendations identified in the “White Paper” of the Working Group of the Vice Ministers Responsible for Trade and Labor in the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. Appropriations have been made available from FY 2005 through 2017 to support labor capacity building efforts in CAFTA-DR countries. For more information, see the full text of the CAFTA-DR at https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta/final-text and the “White Paper” at http://www.sice.oas.org/labor/White%20Paper_e.pdf.

In addition, in December 2006, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) published its procedural guidelines for the receipt and review of submissions under U.S. Free Trade Agreements, including the CAFTA-DR (71 FR 76691 Dec. 21, 2006). Subsequently, pursuant to CAFTA-DR Article 16.4.2, in November 2008, the United States and CAFTA-DR partner countries held the first Labor Affairs Council meeting in San Salvador, El Salvador. Since the CAFTA-DR came into force, USDOL's Office of Trade and Labor Affairs (OTLA) has accepted three submissions under the labor chapter of the CAFTA-DR. In February 2015, OTLA issued a public report on its review of a submission regarding Honduras, and in December of that year the United States and Honduras signed a comprehensive monitoring and action plan that addresses gaps in enforcement of Honduran labor law outlined in OTLA's public report. In September 2013, OTLA issued a public report in response to a submission regarding the Dominican Republic and since then, the Department of Labor has been engaging with the Dominican Republic on the issues identified in the report. With respect to a submission regarding Guatemala, OTLA issued a public report in January 2009, and the United States Trade Representative requested the establishment of an arbitral panel in August 2011, pursuant to Article 20.6.1, to consider whether the Government of Guatemala was conforming to its obligations under Article 16.2.1(a) of the CAFTA-DR. In November 2012, the parties agreed to suspend panel proceedings while the parties negotiated and implemented an Enforcement Plan. In an attempt to resolve the dispute, the Panel resumed its work in September 2013 and issued its final report on June 14, 2017. The Panel's findings confirmed the U.S. view that Guatemala's enforcement failures, in particular with respect to laws protecting the right of association, the right to organize and bargain collectively, and acceptable conditions of work including occupational safety and health, minimum wage, and hours of work, are a serious concern, but determined that evidence did not establish other required elements necessary to prove a violation of CAFTA-DR. Under CAFTA-DR, the panel decision is final; there is no appeal process.

Under section 403(a) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4111(a), the President must report biennially to the Congress on the progress made by the CAFTA-DR countries in implementing the labor obligations and the labor capacity-building provisions found in the Labor Chapter and in Annex 16.5, and in implementing the recommendations contained in the “White Paper.” Section 403(a)(4) requires that the President establish a mechanism to solicit public comments on the matters described in section 403(a)(3)(D) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4111(a)(4) (listed below in 2).

By Proclamation, the President delegated the reporting function and the responsibility for soliciting public comments under section 403(a) of the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4111(a), to the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the USTR (Proclamation No. 8272, 73 FR 38,297 (June 30, 2008)). This notice serves to request public comments as required by this section.

a. Capacity-building efforts by the United States government envisaged by Article 16.5 of the CAFTA-DR Labor Chapter and Annex 16.5;

b. Efforts by the United States government to facilitate full implementation of the “White Paper” recommendations; and

c. Efforts made by the CAFTA-DR countries to comply with Article 16.5 of the Labor Chapter and Annex 16.5 and to fully implement the “White Paper” recommendations, including progress made by the CAFTA-DR countries in affording to workers internationally-recognized worker rights through improved capacity.

Persons submitting comments must do so in English and must make the following note on the first page of their submissions: “Comments regarding the CAFTA-DR Implementation Act.” In order to be assured consideration, comments should be submitted by 5 p.m. (EDT), January 2, 2018. The Department of Labor encourages commenters to make on-line submissions using the www.regulations.gov Web site. When entering this site, enter “Request for Comments on Labor Capacity-Building Efforts Under the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement” on the home page search bar and click “search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice and click on the link entitled “Comment Now.” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” (found on the bottom of the home page under “Help”)).

The www.regulations.gov Web site allows users to provide comments by filling in a “Type Comment field,” or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. The USDOL prefers that uploaded submissions be in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission is in an application other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the “Type Comment” field.

Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the submission itself. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself and not as separate files.

As noted, USDOL strongly urges submitters to file comments through the www.regulations.gov Web site.

Comments will be open to public inspection. Comments may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site.

I. Background

The National Compensation Survey (NCS) is an ongoing survey of earnings and benefits among private firms, State, and local government. Data from the NCS program include estimates of wages covering broad groups of related occupations, and data that directly links benefit plan costs with detailed plan provisions. The NCS is used to produce the Employment Cost Trends, including the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), employee benefits data (on coverage, cost and provisions), data used by the President's Pay Agent and this data is used by compensation administrators and researchers in the private sector. Data from the NCS are used to help in determining monetary policy (as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator.)

The integrated program's single sample produces both time-series indexes and cost levels for industry and occupational groups, thereby increasing the analytical potential of the data.

The NCS employs probability methods for selection of occupations. This ensures that sampled occupations represent all occupations in the workforce, while minimizing the reporting burden on respondents. The survey collects data from a sample of employers. These data will consist of information about the duties, responsibilities, and compensation (earnings and benefits) for a sample of occupations for each sampled employer.

Data will be updated on a quarterly basis. The updates will allow for production of data on change in earnings and total compensation.

Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the National Compensation Survey.

The NCS collects earnings and work level data on occupations for the nation. The NCS also collects information on the cost, provisions, and incidence of major employee benefits through its benefit cost and benefit provision programs and publications.

BLS has for a number of years been using a revised approach to the Locality Pay Survey (LPS); this uses data from two current BLS programs—the Occupational Employment Statistics (OES) survey and the ECI program. This approach uses OES data to provide wage data by occupation and by area, while ECI data are used to specify grade level effects. This approach is also being used to extend the estimation of pay gaps to areas that were not included in the prior Locality Pay Survey sample, and these data have been delivered to the Pay Agent (in 2014, data for 92 areas were delivered.)

The NCS has a national survey design for the ECI and the EBS. The NCS private industry sample is on a three-year rotational cycle, with one frozen sample year every ten years for the NCS private industry sample when a new NCS State and local government sample starts (approximately in 2025).

The NCS continues to provide employee benefit provision and participation data. These data include estimates of how many workers receive the various employer-sponsored benefits. The data also include information about the common provisions of benefit plans.

NCS collection will use a number of collection forms (normally having unique private industry and government initiation and update collection forms and versions). For NCS update collection, the forms or screens give respondents their previously reported information, the dates they expected change to occur to these data, and space for reporting these changes.

The NCS for electronic collection uses a Web-based system (Web-Lite) that allows NCS respondents, using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption and the establishment's schedule number, to upload data files to a secure BLS server and forwards those files to the assigned BLS field economist.

Some benefits (called “Other benefits”) data are collected to track the emergence of new or changing benefits over time. The BLS only asks whether sampled occupations receive these benefits and periodically modifies this list. With this clearance, BLS is removing subsidized commuting and stock options from Other benefit collection. BLS is adding the collection of student loan repayments and flexible work schedules.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Title of Collection: National Compensation Survey.

OMB Number: 1220-0164.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, and tribal government.

Total Respondents: 15,863 (three-year average).

All figures are based on a three-year average. The total responses are higher as some respondents are contacted multiple times.

Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.

The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, you must submit the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend to the Center for Legislative Archives no later than Friday, December 1, 2017. The Center will provide additional instructions for accessing the meeting's location.

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0220, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0220.

• 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.

Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0220, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, 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, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

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 Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

Date of amendment request: August 31, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17248A389.

Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the PNP Site Emergency Plan (SEP) for the permanently shut down and defueled condition. The proposed PNP SEP changes would revise the shift staffing and Emergency Response Organization (ERO) staffing.

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Attorney for licensee: William Dennis, Assistant General Counsel, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., 440 Hamilton Ave., White Plains, NY 10601.

NRC Branch Chief: Douglas A. Broaddus.

Date of amendment request: September 1, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17244A093.

Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify the licensing basis by the addition of a license condition to allow for the implementation of the provisions of 10 CFR, Section 50.69, “Risk-informed categorization and treatment of structures, systems and components for nuclear power reactors.”

Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: