Federal Register Vol. 82, No.225,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 225 (November 24, 2017)

Page Range55723-55922
FR Document

82_FR_225
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 55859 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 55861 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 55912 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Directed Order FunctionalityPDF
82 FR 55771 - Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 55921 - Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, Notice of Meeting, AmendedPDF
82 FR 55915 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Approval To Travel to a Restricted Country or AreaPDF
82 FR 55842 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (BSC, OPHPR)PDF
82 FR 55843 - Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID); Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 55843 - Board of Scientific Counselors, BSC, NCIPC; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 55843 - Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee (BCCEDCAC); CorrectionPDF
82 FR 55760 - Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Removal of Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield, CA and the Addition of Griffiss International Airport, Rome, NY; Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA; Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field, Kennesaw, GA; and Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NCPDF
82 FR 55850 - Customs Brokers User Fee Payment for 2018PDF
82 FR 55810 - Final Redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application Status Under Regulation BPDF
82 FR 55857 - Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska Region, Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Liberty Development and Production Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Re-Opening of Public Comment Period; MMAA10400PDF
82 FR 55858 - Silicon Metal From China; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year ReviewPDF
82 FR 55829 - Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 55831 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 55842 - Information Collection; Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child LaborPDF
82 FR 55802 - National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality SectorPDF
82 FR 55879 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal MinesPDF
82 FR 55845 - Announcement of Meetings of the Tick-Borne Disease Working GroupPDF
82 FR 55843 - Phase Four of the National Action Plan To Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination; Coordination Among Federal Partners To Leverage HAI Prevention and Antibiotic StewardshipPDF
82 FR 55851 - Meeting: Homeland Security Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 55916 - Notice of Release From Federal Surplus Property and Grant Assurance Obligations at Ocotillo Airport, Ocotillo Wells, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 55847 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG BERT REINAUERPDF
82 FR 55880 - Designation of Databases for Treasury's Working System Under the Do Not Pay InitiativePDF
82 FR 55839 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 55832 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 55766 - Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved AreaPDF
82 FR 55836 - Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, November 16, 2017PDF
82 FR 55839 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 55834 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 55835 - Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)PDF
82 FR 55772 - Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting ServicesPDF
82 FR 55837 - Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 55767 - Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support MechanismPDF
82 FR 55847 - National Maritime Security Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 55880 - Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Fire Protection System Piping That Must Remain Functional Following a Safe Shutdown EarthquakePDF
82 FR 55920 - Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements; Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 55800 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26-Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity Kubota North America Corporation (Agricultural and Specialty Vehicles) Jefferson and Gainesville, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 55830 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Detroit Dam Downstream Passage ProjectPDF
82 FR 55734 - Community Reinvestment Act RegulationsPDF
82 FR 55921 - Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 55831 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools Nominee Presentation FormPDF
82 FR 55848 - Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act; Fiscal Year 2017PDF
82 FR 55761 - Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of Compliance DatePDF
82 FR 55882 - AREVA Inc.; Import And Export License Amendment ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 55809 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 55914 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 55744 - Freedom of Information Act RegulationsPDF
82 FR 55915 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 55857 - Invasive Species Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 55799 - Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review BoardPDF
82 FR 55849 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Harbor Maintenance FeePDF
82 FR 55806 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 55809 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 55808 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 55856 - National Geospatial Advisory Committee; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 55799 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United StatesPDF
82 FR 55861 - United States v. CenturyLink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
82 FR 55841 - Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectations for Boards of DirectorsPDF
82 FR 55791 - Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LLPDF
82 FR 55800 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 55859 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 55807 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 55804 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingsPDF
82 FR 55805 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 55808 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 55918 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 55919 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
82 FR 55860 - Certain Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials Thereof: Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 55890 - Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 55791 - Recognition of Pilot in Command Experience in the Military and in Part 121 Air Carrier OperationsPDF
82 FR 55892 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7300PDF
82 FR 55895 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Minimum Order Size for the Floor Broker Guarantee Provided in Rule 7600(f)PDF
82 FR 55896 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 612, Aggregate Risk Manager (“ARM”)PDF
82 FR 55905 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Order Approving Proposed Rule Changes To Add Rules Related to the Clearing of Options on Index Credit Default SwapsPDF
82 FR 55894 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce Bats Market Close, a Closing Match Process for Non-BZX Listed Securities Under New Exchange Rule 11.28PDF
82 FR 55883 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Fees for Use on Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.PDF
82 FR 55852 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Document Verification Request and SupplementPDF
82 FR 55854 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
82 FR 55775 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the Individual Fishing Quota FisheryPDF
82 FR 55853 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien WorkersPDF
82 FR 55898 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trust Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.201-EPDF
82 FR 55891 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the CBOE S&P 500® Dividend Aristocrats® Target Income Index ETF Under the ETF Series Solutions Trust, Under Exchange Rule 14.11(c)(3), Index Fund SharesPDF
82 FR 55888 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7050 (Minimum Trading Increments)PDF
82 FR 55917 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
82 FR 55883 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, & First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 55790 - Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalPDF
82 FR 55804 - Marine Mammals and Endangered SpeciesPDF
82 FR 55847 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 55841 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 55854 - Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Required Manufacturer CorrectionsPDF
82 FR 55844 - Meeting of the National Preparedness and Response Science BoardPDF
82 FR 55846 - NIH Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in ObesityPDF
82 FR 55806 - SAW-SARC 64 Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 55878 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Federal Employees' Compensation Act Medical Reports and Compensation ClaimsPDF
82 FR 55723 - Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic ProvisionsPDF
82 FR 55855 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Volusia, County, FLPDF
82 FR 55841 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10337, Community First Bank-ChicagoPDF
82 FR 55755 - Airworthiness Directives; ATR-GIE Avions de Transport Régional AirplanesPDF
82 FR 55752 - Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. HelicoptersPDF
82 FR 55757 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 225 Friday, November 24, 2017 Contents Administrative Administrative Conference of the United States NOTICES Meetings: Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States, 55799 2017-25374 Agency Agency for International Development NOTICES Membership of Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 55799-55800 2017-25381 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Proposed Final Judgments and Competitive Impact Statements: United States v. CenturyLink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc, 55861-55878 2017-25373 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Final Redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application Status under Regulation B, 55810-55829 2017-25434 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Charter Renewals: Board of Scientific Counselors, 55843 2017-25438 Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, 55843 2017-25439 Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, 55842-55843 2017-25440 Meetings: Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee; Correction, 55843 2017-25437 Coast Guard Coast Guard NOTICES Certificates of Alternative Compliance: TUG BERT REINAUER, 55847 2017-25418 Meetings: National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 55847-55848 2017-25404 Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act; Fiscal Year 2017, 55848-55849 2017-25393 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Community Reinvestment Act, 55734-55743 2017-25396 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, 55842 2017-25429 Meetings: Reserve Forces Policy Board; Federal Advisory Committee, 55829-55830 2017-25431
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 55800 2017-25370 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Green Ribbon Schools Nominee Presentation Form, 55831 2017-25394 Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Detroit Dam Downstream Passage Project, 55830-55831 2017-25398 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 55831-55832 2017-25430 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters, 55752-55755 2017-24738 AT—GIE Avions de Transport Regional Airplanes, 55755-55757 2017-25004 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 55757-55760 2017-23998 PROPOSED RULES Recognition of Pilot in Command Experience in the Military and in Air Carrier Operations, 55791-55798 2017-25358 NOTICES Land Use Changes and Releases of Grant Assurance Restrictions: Ocotillo Airport, Ocotillo Wells, CA, 55916-55917 2017-25422 Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 55917 2017-25344 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area, 55766-55767 2017-25413 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, 55772-55775 2017-25408 Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; Correction, 55771-55772 2017-25443 Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, 55767-55771 2017-25406 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55832-55841 2017-25407 2017-25409 2017-25410 2017-25411 2017-25414 2017-25415 Meetings: Open Commission, 55836-55837 2017-25412 Federal Crop Federal Crop Insurance Corporation RULES Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions, 55723-55734 2017-25330 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Community Reinvestment Act, 55734-55743 2017-25396 NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Community First Bank-Chicago, 55841 2017-25210 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Petitions for Waivers of Compliance: National Railroad Passenger Corp., 55919 2017-25361 Riverport Railroad, LLC, 55919-55920 2017-25363 South Carolina Railroad Museum, Inc., 55918 2017-25362 TEX Rail, 55918-55919 2017-25364 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Community Reinvestment Act, 55734-55743 2017-25396 PROPOSED RULES Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL, 55791 2017-25371 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 55841 2017-25338 Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectations for Boards of Directors, 55841-55842 2017-25372 Financial Stability Financial Stability Oversight Council RULES Freedom of Information Act Regulations, 55744-55752 2017-25386 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for Florida Scrub-Jay, Volusia, County, FL, 55855-55856 2017-25249 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Proposed Production Activities: Kubota North America Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 26, Atlanta, GA, 55800-55802 2017-25399 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, 55842 2017-25429 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: National Geospatial Advisory Committee, 55856-55857 2017-25375 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Preparedness and Response Science Board, 55844-55845 2017-25336 Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, 55845 2017-25425 Phase Four of the National Action Plan To Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination; Coordination Among Federal Partners To Leverage HAI Prevention and Antibiotic Stewardship, 55843-55844 2017-25424
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Advisory Council, 55851 2017-25423
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Approval of Extension of Time To Complete Required Manufacturer Correction, 55854-55855 2017-25337 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

NOTICES Meetings: Invasive Species Advisory Committee; Teleconference, 55857 2017-25383
International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: In the Matter of AMOLED Display Infringing US Patents, 55859-55860 2017-25369 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials Thereof, 55860-55861 2017-25360 Silicon Metal From China, 55858-55859 2017-25432 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55859, 55861 2017-25491 2017-25542 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Employees' Compensation Act Medical Reports and Compensation Claims, 55878-55879 2017-25333
Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Designation of Databases for Treasury's Working System Under the Do Not Pay Initiative, 55880 2017-25416 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines in Underground Coal Mines, 55879-55880 2017-25426 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, 55842 2017-25429 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55920-55921 2017-25401 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence: Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector, 55802-55804 2017-25427 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 55847 2017-25339 NIH Pathways to Prevention Workshop—Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in Obesity, 55846 2017-25335 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries Off West Coast States: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the Individual Fishing Quota Fishery, 55775-55789 2017-25349 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55806, 55808-55809 2017-25376 2017-25377 2017-25378 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 55805-55806 2017-25366 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 55808 2017-25365 Fisheries of the South Atlantic South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 55807-55808 2017-25368 SAW-SARC 64, 55806-55807 2017-25334 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 55804 2017-25367 Permits: Marine Mammals and Endangered Species, 55804-55805 2017-25340 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55809-55810 2017-25389 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal, 55790-55791 2017-25341 NOTICES Exemptions and Combined Licenses; Amendments: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Fire Protection System Piping That Must Remain Functional Following a Safe Shutdown Earthquake, 55880-55882 2017-25403 License Amendment Applications: AREVA Inc., 55882-55883 2017-25391 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration RULES Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses, 55761-55766 2017-25392 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska Region, Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Liberty Development and Production Plan, 55857-55858 2017-25433 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 55883 2017-25342 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Motley Fool Asset Management, LLC, 55890-55891 2017-25359 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 55891-55892, 55894-55895 2017-25346 2017-25353 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 55888-55890, 55892-55896 2017-25345 2017-25356 2017-25357 Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., 55883-55888 2017-25352 LCH-SA, 55905-55912 2017-25354 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 55896-55898 2017-25355 Nasdaq GEMX, LLC, 55912-55914 2017-25475 NYSE Arca, Inc., 55898-55905 2017-25347 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55914-55915 2017-25385 2017-25387 2017-25388 2017-25384 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Request for Approval To Travel to a Restricted Country or Area, 55915-55916 2017-25441 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55854 2017-25350 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Document Verification Request and Supplement, 55852-55853 2017-25351 Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, 55853-55854 2017-25348 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection RULES Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Removal of Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield, CA and the Addition of Griffiss International Airport, Rome, NY; Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA; et al., 55760-55761 2017-25436 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Harbor Maintenance Fee, 55849-55850 2017-25380 Customs Brokers User Fee Payment for 2018, 55850 2017-25435 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans, 55921-55922 2017-25442 Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, 55921 2017-25395 Reader Aids

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

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

82 225 Friday, November 24, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 7 CFR Parts 402, 407, and 457 [Docket No. FCIC-17-0004] RIN 0563-AC56 Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions AGENCY:

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions, and the Common Crop Insurance Policy Basic Provisions to revise and clarify policy provisions and reduce burden on producers choosing to insure their crops. The changes to the policy made in this rule are applicable for the 2018 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a 2018 contract change date on or after the effective date of the rule, and for the 2019 and succeeding crop years for all crops with a 2018 contract change date prior to the effective date of the rule.

DATES:

This final rule is effective November 24, 2017. However, FCIC will accept written comments on this final rule until close of business January 23, 2018. FCIC may consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

ADDRESSES:

FCIC prefers interested persons submit their comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. FCIC-17-0004, by any of the following methods:

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

Mail: Director, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64133-6205.

FCIC will post all comments received, including those received by mail, without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Once these comments are posted to this Web site, the public can access all comments at its convenience from this Web site. All comments must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rule. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information, see http://www.regulations.gov. If interested persons are submitting comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal and want to attach a document, FCIC requests that the document attachment be in a text-based format. If interested persons want to attach a document that is a scanned Adobe PDF file, it must be scanned as text and not as an image, thus allowing FCIC to search and copy certain portions of the submissions. For questions regarding attaching a document that is a scanned Adobe PDF file, please contact the Risk Management Agency (RMA) Web Content Team at (816) 823-4694 or by email at [email protected]

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received for any dockets by the name of the person submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an entity, such as an association, business, labor union, etc.). Interested persons may review the complete User Notice and Privacy Notice for Regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice.

For Further Information Contact:

Tim Hoffmann, Product Management, Product Administration and Standards Division, Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture, Beacon Facility, Stop 0812, Room 421, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, MO 64141-6205, telephone (816) 926-7730.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. FCIC is revising section 6(f) to the CAT Endorsement (7 CFR part 402) to remove the date of June 1 from the conservation compliance provisions and instead refer to the premium billing date. This will provide more flexibility to policyholders and allow the conservation compliance certification process for crop insurance to be administered more consistently with the way it is administered for other USDA programs. Under the new provisions, policyholders must still have a valid AD-1026 on file with the Farm Service Agency (FSA) for the reinsurance year to be eligible for premium subsidy; however, the AD-1026 does not have to be completed by June 1 of the preceding reinsurance year. While June 1 was believed to be an appropriate timeframe in which the AD-1026 needed to be signed, after two years since initial implementation a more streamlined approach is warranted to provide administrative efficiencies for both producers and FCIC/FSA without impacting the appropriate determinations of compliance. Insurance providers can confirm whether a policyholder has a valid AD-1026 on file, via data received from FCIC, as of the premium billing date, and any policyholder without an AD-1026 on file will be billed the full unsubsidized premium. To effectuate these changes, FCIC has revised section 6(f)(2) to clarify the date by which producers must be determined to be eligible for premium subsidy. FCIC has also added section 6(f)(2)(i)(A) to remove the June 1 deadline from the FCIC language providing exceptions from the requirement to file an AD-1026 for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026 and to specify that policyholders must certify to the exception by the premium billing date. The FCIC exceptions allow new producers certifying they meet the exception criteria by the premium billing date to receive premium subsidy for the initial reinsurance year while providing the flexibility to file form AD-1026 with FSA by the premium billing date of the subsequent reinsurance year to maintain premium subsidy eligibility. Subparagraph (B) was added to section 6(f)(2)(i) to reference FSA relief provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12 that provide additional time to file an AD-1026 if producers are unable to file due to circumstances beyond their control and provides additional time to provide required information if the AD-1026 is timely filed but the producer is unable to timely provide the information due to circumstances beyond their control. FCIC has determined these changes will have no impact on the proper determinations of conservation compliance regarding Highly Erodible Land/Wetland Compliance violations under 7 CFR part 12. These changes are intended to increase the opportunity for producers to comply with the form AD-1026 conservation compliance certification requirement and decrease the likelihood of producers who have not committed a violation from becoming ineligible for premium subsidy.

2. The specific changes to the Area Risk Protection Insurance Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 407) are as follows:

(a) Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “good farming practices” for clarification by removing the reference to an organic plan, because an organic plan and good farming practice determinations serve two different purposes. An organic plan is a written plan that describes organic farming practices, but does not necessarily provide a comprehensive list of good farming practices. FCIC is also reorganizing the definition to improve readability.

FCIC is revising the definition of “limited resource farmer” by updating the Web site for the USDA definition because the Web site address had become out of date.

FCIC is revising the name of the definition of “RMA's Web site” to “RMA's Web site” because the uncapitalized, one-word term is more commonly used. FCIC is also correcting references to this term throughout the policy.

(b) Section 2—FCIC is revising section 2(j) to add a new paragraph (2) that clarifies that with the policyholder's consent the premium and administrative fees can be offset from any indemnity due the policyholder even if the offset occurs before the fees are billed. This change clarifies the issues raised in Final Agency Determination-147 and allows insurance providers the latitude to contact the policyholder and inquire as to whether the policyholder would agree to have the “unbilled” administrative fees and premium offset from the remaining amount of the loss. FCIC is redesignating paragraph 2(j)(2) as 2(j)(3).

FCIC is revising section 2(k)(2)(i)(D) to update the years used in the example so that it reflects more recent crop years.

FCIC is revising section 2(k)(3)(ii) to reference subpart U regarding written payment agreements and deleting the parenthetical from this provision. FCIC is removing the prohibition on a policyholder entering into a written payment agreement if they previously failed to make a scheduled payment under any payment agreement to give insurance providers the flexibility to enter into these agreements. Subpart U provides information regarding written payment agreements. Subpart U provides that only one written payment agreement is permitted per termination date. Subpart U also provides other requirements for written payment agreements such as a written payment agreement cannot exceed two years in duration and a written payment agreement cannot be modified after it has been executed. Subpart U does not restrict a policyholder from entering into a written payment agreement if they previously failed to make a payment under an agreement. By referring to subpart U, FCIC will not need to make updates to the Basic Provisions when changes are made to subpart U.

FCIC is revising section 2(p)(2) to update the years used in the example so that it reflects more recent crop years.

(c) Section 7—FCIC is revising section 7(i) to remove the date of June 1 from the conservation compliance provisions and instead refer to the premium billing date. This will provide more flexibility to policyholders and allow the conservation compliance certification process for crop insurance to be administered more consistently with the way it is administered for other USDA programs. Under the new provisions, policyholders must still have a valid AD-1026 on file with FSA for the reinsurance year to be eligible for premium subsidy; however, the AD-1026 does not have to be completed by June 1 of the preceding reinsurance year. While June 1 was believed to be an appropriate timeframe in which the AD-1026 needed to be signed, after two years since initial implementation a more streamlined approach is warranted to provide administrative efficiencies for both producers and FCIC/FSA without impacting the appropriate determinations of compliance. Insurance providers can confirm whether a policyholder has a valid AD-1026 on file, via data received from FCIC, as of the premium billing date, and a policyholder without an AD-1026 on file will be billed the full unsubsidized premium. To effectuate these changes FCIC has revised section 7(i)(2) to clarify the date by which producers must be determined to be eligible for premium subsidy. FCIC has also added section 7(i)(2)(i)(A) to remove the June 1 deadline from the FCIC language providing exceptions from the requirement to file an AD-1026 for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026 and to specify that policyholders must certify to the exception by the premium billing date. The FCIC exceptions allow new producers certifying they meet the exception criteria by the premium billing date to receive premium subsidy for the initial reinsurance year while providing the flexibility to file form AD-1026 with FSA by the premium billing date of the subsequent reinsurance year to maintain premium subsidy eligibility. Subparagraph (B) was added to section 7(i)(2)(i) to reference FSA relief provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12 that provide additional time to file an AD-1026 if producers are unable to file due to circumstances beyond their control and provides additional time to provide required information if the AD-1026 is timely filed but the producer is unable to timely provide the information due to circumstances beyond their control. FCIC has determined these changes will have no impact on the proper determinations of conservation compliance regarding Highly Erodible Land/Wetland Compliance violations. These changes are intended to increase the opportunity for producers to comply with the form AD-1026 conservation compliance certification requirement and decrease the likelihood of producers who have not committed a violation from becoming ineligible for premium subsidy.

3. The changes to the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions (7 CFR part 457) are as follows:

(a) Preamble—FCIC is revising the order of priority in the preamble to include the actuarial documents. By definition, the actuarial documents are a part of the policy and should be included in the order of priority. The actuarial documents will follow the Special Provisions in the order of priority.

(b) Section 1—FCIC is revising the definition of “Cooperative Extension System” by replacing the reference to the “Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service” to the “National Institute of Food and Agriculture.” This change is being made to reference the correct entity.

FCIC is revising the name of the definition of “FSA farm serial number” to “FSA farm number” because the term “FSA farm serial number” is no longer used. FCIC is also correcting references to this term throughout the policy.

FCIC is revising the definition of “good farming practices” for clarification by removing the reference to an organic plan, because an organic plan and good farming practice determinations serve two different purposes. An organic plan is a written plan that describes organic farming practices, but does not necessarily provide a comprehensive list of good farming practices. FCIC is also reorganizing the definition to improve readability.

FCIC is revising the definition of “price election” by replacing the phrase “Special Provisions, or in an addendum thereto” with the phrase “actuarial documents” because price elections are contained in the actuarial documents.

FCIC is revising the definition of “replanted crop” to address how to calculate production to count in the event of a claim if the insurance provider determines it is not practical to replant and the policyholder plants the acreage to the same insured crop.

The rules surrounding “practical to replant” are designed for a failed crop to be replanted with the replant expenses covered by the insurance policy. In most cases, if there is a reasonable chance harvesting some production from the replanted crop and thereby provides assistance for impacted policyholders to grow the crop they intended. This assists policyholders while potentially reducing costs for the taxpayer, potentially lowers premium rates, and provides the potential for growers to have higher insurance guarantees in subsequent years than would otherwise be the case. If there is not a reasonable chance of at least some production, then the policyholder should not replant the crop.

If, later, the policyholder decides to replant the crop for the same intended use, then the policyholder is indicating that there is a reasonable chance of some production. Any production from the replanted crop is applied against the losses from the initial crop.

In relation to “replanted crops,” concerns have been raised that if an insurance provider determines that it is not practical to replant a crop and the policyholder plants the acreage to the same insured crop, it is possible the replanted crop could have less production to count than the appraised production on the initially planted crop. Allowing the policyholder to receive the larger claim, creates a moral hazard situation, where the policyholders could receive a larger indemnity from replanting a crop when it may not be practical to do so. It is not the intent of FCIC to pay producers a full indemnity for a crop and then they successfully plant and harvest the same crop for the same intended use after the late planting period. Therefore, FCIC has determined the indemnity should be based on the greater of: (1) The appraised production on the initially planted crop; (2) the subsequent appraisal of the replanted crop if the replanted crop is not harvested; or (3) the harvested production from the replanted crop.

FCIC is also revising the definition of “replanted crop” to accommodate growing practices of producers. The rationale behind “replanted crop” rules is to ensure that producers are not paid a full indemnity and subsequently plant the same crop for the same purpose to harvest. If a producer plants the same crop, then a full indemnity should not be paid on the initially planted crop and FCIC should ensure that taxpayer losses are lessened if the second attempt to plant the crop results in a better yield than the initially planted crop.

Specifically, FCIC is revising the definition of “replanted crop” to state unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions, the crop will be considered an insured replanted crop and no replanting payment will be paid if the insurance provider has determined: (1) It is not practical to replant the insured crop, and (2) the policyholder chooses to plant the acreage to the same insured crop within or prior to the late planting period, or after the final planting date if no late planting period is applicable.

FCIC is making this change to clarify that anytime the acreage is replanted to the same crop within or prior to the late planting period, it will be considered a replanted crop. However, FCIC also recognizes that in some situations a producer replants the same crop much later and for a different purpose. For example, a crop is damaged and it is determined not practical to replant. However, after the late planting period, conditions allow a policyholder to plant a crop with no intention of harvesting for grain but rather the chance of harvesting for livestock feed. This revision will allow a claim to be paid for the initially seeded crop and not be impacted by the late planted crop which was never intended to be harvested as grain.

Additionally, the revisions provides FCIC flexibility to clarify by Special Provisions certain situations where a crop is replanted to the same crop and when it will or will not be considered a replanted crop. This flexibility addressed those crops that have no late planting period or late planting periods that are a few days.

FCIC is revising the name of the definition of “RMA's Web site” to “RMA's Web site” because the uncapitalized, one-word term is more commonly used. FCIC is also correcting references to this term throughout the policy.

(c) Section 2—FCIC is revising section 2(e) to add a new paragraph (2) that clarifies that with the policyholder's consent the premium and administrative fees can be offset from any prevented planting or indemnity due the policyholder even if the offset occurs before the fees are billed. This change clarifies the issues raised in Final Agency Determination-147 and allows insurance providers the latitude to contact the policyholder and inquire as to whether the policyholder would agree to have the “unbilled” administrative fees and premium offset from the remaining amount of the loss.

FCIC is revising section 2(f)(2)(i)(D) to update the years used in the example to reflect more recent crop years.

FCIC is revising section 2(f)(3)(ii) to reference subpart U regarding written payment agreements and deleting the parenthetical from this provision. FCIC is removing the prohibition that does not allow a policyholder to enter into a written payment agreement if they previously failed to make a payment under an agreement to give insurance providers the flexibility to enter into these agreements. Subpart U provides information regarding written payment agreements. Subpart U provides that only one written payment agreement is permitted per termination date. It also provides other requirements for written payment agreements such as a written payment agreement cannot exceed two years in duration and a written payment agreement cannot be modified after it has been executed. Subpart U does not restrict a policyholder from entering into a written payment agreement if they previously failed to make a payment under an agreement. By referring to subpart U, FCIC will not need to make updates to the Basic Provisions when changes are made to subpart U.

FCIC is revising section 2(f)(5) to update the years used in the example to reflect more recent crop years.

FCIC is removing section 2(j) because this provision is unnecessary since there are no longer maximum allowable amounts of administrative fees. Previously, when there were caps, there needed to be a way to inform insurance providers when the cap had been met in those situations where the policyholder insured with more than one insurance provider. FCIC is redesignating paragraph 2(k) as 2(j).

(d) Section 3—FCIC is revising section 3(f)(3) to allow these provisions to be changed in the Special Provisions. This change provides flexibility to amend the production reporting dates and the manner in which production reports are submitted if it is determined appropriate to better meet the needs of the program and policyholders.

FCIC is revising section 3(h)(1) by changing the reference of “valid basis” to “valid agronomic basis” to be consistent with section 3(h)(2). This will allow FCIC to require the same basis for supporting both the excessive yields and inconsistent yields and will clarify that factors related to the soil and crop productivity will be considered when determining whether yields should be considered acceptable.

(e) Section 6—FCIC is revising section 6(a)(3) to add a new paragraph (iii) that provides if the policyholder planted the insured crop on or within five days prior to the final planting date and the final planting date is five or fewer days prior to the acreage reporting date, the policyholder must submit an acreage report no later than five days after the acreage reporting date. This allows policyholders adequate time to submit their acreage reports if the insured crop's acreage reporting date is the same as or closely follows the final planting date.

(f) Section 7—FCIC is revising section 7(h) to remove the date of June 1 from the conservation compliance provisions and instead refer to the premium billing date. This will provide more flexibility to policyholders and allows the conservation compliance certification process for crop insurance to be administered more consistently with the way it is administered for other USDA programs. Under the new provisions, policyholders must still have a valid AD-1026 on file with FSA for the reinsurance year to be eligible for premium subsidy; however, the AD-1026 does not have to be completed by June 1 of the preceding reinsurance year. While June 1 was believed to be an appropriate timeframe in which the AD-1026 needed to be signed, after two years since initial implementation a more streamlined approach is warranted to provide administrative efficiencies for both producers and FCIC/FSA without impacting the appropriate determinations of compliance. Insurance providers can confirm whether a policyholder has a valid AD-1026 on file, via data received from FCIC, as of the premium billing date, and any policyholder without an AD-1026 on file will be billed the full unsubsidized premium. To effectuate these changes, FCIC has revised section 7(h)(2) to clarify the date by which producers must be determined to be eligible for premium subsidy. FCIC has also added section 7(h)(2)(i)(A) to remove the June 1 deadline from the FCIC language providing exceptions from the requirement to file an AD-1026 for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026 and to specify that policyholders must certify to the exception by the premium billing date. The FCIC exceptions allow new producers certifying they meet the exception criteria by the premium billing date to receive premium subsidy for the initial reinsurance year while providing the flexibility to file form AD-1026 with FSA by the premium billing date of the subsequent reinsurance year to maintain premium subsidy eligibility. Subparagraph (B) was added to section 7(h)(2)(i) to reference FSA relief provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12 that provide additional time to file an AD-1026 if producers are unable to file due to circumstances beyond their control and provides additional time to provide required information if the AD-1026 is timely filed but the producer is unable to timely provide the information due to circumstances beyond their control. FCIC has determined these changes will have no impact on the proper determinations of conservation compliance regarding Highly Erodible Land/Wetland Compliance violations. These changes are intended to increase the opportunity for producers to comply with the form AD-1026 conservation compliance certification requirement and decrease the likelihood of producers who have not committed a violation from becoming ineligible for premium subsidy.

(g) Section 9—FCIC is revising section 9(a)(2)(viii)(A) by changing the reference to the “Group Risk Protection Plan of Insurance” to “Area Risk Protection Insurance” because the Group Risk Protection Plan of Insurance was replaced with Area Risk Protection Insurance for the 2014 and succeeding crop years.

(h) Section 17—FCIC is revising section 17(f)(9) by changing the reference to “manpower” to “labor” to update the term to be gender neutral.

(i) Section 18—FCIC is revising sections 18(c)(1) and (2) by replacing the phrase “Special Provisions, or in an addendum thereto” with the phrase “actuarial documents” as price elections are contained in the actuarial documents.

FCIC is revising section 18(e)(2)(i)(B) to remove the requirement that a written agreement to insure acreage that is greater than five percent of the planted acreage in the unit where the acreage has not been planted and harvested or insured in any of the three previous crop years (commonly referred to as new breaking acreage) must be requested by the acreage reporting date. The Special Provisions have previously been utilized to require a written agreement on such acreage be requested by the sales closing date. By removing this language from this section, the deadline to request this type of written agreement will revert to section 18(a), making the deadline the sales closing date and allowing the Special Provisions statement to be removed.

FCIC is removing section 18(e)(3) because any additional land or additional crop must meet the request deadlines of section 18(a) or 18(e) regardless of whether the additional land or additional crop will be added to an existing written agreement or a request for a written agreement. Therefore, this language is not needed.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(1)(ii) to remove language regarding the information needed to determine the approved yield. By specifying that the completed actual production history (APH) must be based on verifiable records of actual yields for the crop and county, the APH already contains the information needed to determine the approved yield. The revision is made because the language is redundant.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(1)(ii) to remove the requirement of the policyholder's signature on the completed APH submitted with the written agreement request. The policyholder certifies to the insurance provider each year the yields on the APH for the year the crop is produced and any required signatures are obtained by the insurance provider from the policyholder at that time. Requiring a policyholder's signature on the APH for a written agreement request is redundant.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(1)(iii) to add “the crop” as an option for evidence of adaptability. Making this change clarifies that for situations when the crop is not insurable, evidence of adaptability can only be required for the crop itself, and is not required to be broken down by practice, type, or variety. The current practice, type, or variety language is intended for when the crop may be insurable, but the requested practice, type, or variety is not.

FCIC is removing section 18(f)(1)(vi) to clarify that “all other information” is not a requirement to obtain a written agreement. The policyholder may still provide any other information they wish to support their request for written agreement, but the policyholder is only required to submit the information identified in sections 18(f).

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(i) to clarify this section is not only applicable to crops previously planted, it is also applicable to perennial crops that have previously produced a crop. Due to the nature of how long some perennial crops take to produce after planting the crop, specifying “perennial crops that have previously produced a crop” instead of “planted” clarifies the language for how perennial crops are affected.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(i) to allow an entity to use the production history from a substantial beneficial interest in the entity that has a history of growing the crop to qualify for a written agreement. This revision will allow a newly formed entity a pathway to qualify for a written agreement, whereas previously the newly formed entity was required to grow the crop, or a similar crop, for a minimum of three years before the new entity could qualify, even if substantial beneficial interests of the entity had previously grown the crop.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(i)(A) to remove the requirement of the policyholder's signature on the completed APH submitted with the written agreement request. If the policyholder has insured the crop in the county or area, then the yields used on the APH have already been certified by the policyholder each year the production report was provided, and any required signatures are obtained by the insurance provider from the policyholder at that time. If the crop was not insured, then verifiable records must be submitted with the written agreement request. In both cases, requiring a policyholder's signature on the APH for a written agreement request is redundant. Therefore, removing the APH signature requirement increases efficiency for written agreement requests and is less burdensome to the policyholder.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(i)(A) of the Basic Provisions to state the completed APH is based on verifiable production records of actual yields for the crop to be consistent with the APH requirement for other written agreement request types.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(i)(B) to clarify this section is also applicable to perennial crops that have previously produced a crop. As stated above, due to the nature of how long some perennial crops take to produce after planting the crop, specifying “perennial crops that have previously produced a crop” instead of “planted” clarifies the language for how perennial crops are affected.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(2) to remove the requirement that the policyholder must insure the crop for the three previous crop years before they can substitute a year of insurance experience for a year of verifiable records. This change will allow the policyholder to use their insured crop's information for any year that the policyholder has insured the crop instead of providing verifiable records. For example, if the policyholder has produced the requested crop for three years and insured the requested crop for one year, verifiable records only have to be submitted for the two years the requested crop was not insured. For the year that the crop was insured the policyholder does not have to provide verifiable records.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(2) to allow an entity to use the production history from a substantial beneficial interest in the entity that has a history of growing the crop to qualify for a written agreement. As stated above, this revision will allow a newly formed entity a pathway to qualify for a written agreement, whereas previously the newly formed entity was required to grow the crop, or a similar crop, for a minimum of three years before the new entity could qualify, even if substantial beneficial interests of the entity had previously grown the crop.

FCIC is adding a new section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(3) to state that FCIC will not consider any crop year in which the crop was planted outside of the most recent ten crop years as a year of previously planting the crop, or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop, unless verifiable production records are provided, or the crop was insured for that crop year. This change reduces the burden on policyholders by not requiring them to bring in the requested crop verifiable records from over ten years ago, which would allow the use of similar crop provisions in section 18(f)(2)(ii) to fulfill the requirement if the policyholder has not grown the requested crop for three crop years in the last ten years, even if the policyholder produced the requested crop more than ten years ago.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(ii) to clarify this section is not only applicable to crops previously planted, it is also applicable to perennial crops that have previously produced a crop. As stated above, due to the nature of how long some perennial crops take to produce after the crop is planted, specifying “perennial crops that have previously produced a crop” instead of “planted” clarifies the language for how perennial crops are affected.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(ii) to allow an entity to use the production history from a substantial beneficial interest in the entity that has a history of growing the crop to qualify for a written agreement. As stated above, this revision will allow a newly formed entity a pathway to qualify for a written agreement, whereas previously the newly formed entity was required to grow the crop, or a similar crop, for a minimum of three years before the new entity could qualify, even if substantial beneficial interests of the entity had previously grown the crop.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(A) to remove the requirement of the policyholder's signature on the completed APH submitted with the written agreement request. As stated above, if the policyholder has insured the crop in the county or area, then the yields used on the APH have already been certified to the insurance provider each year the production report was provided, and any required signatures are obtained by the insurance provider from the policyholder at that time. If the crop was not insured, then verifiable records must be submitted with the written agreement request. In both cases, requiring a policyholder's signature on the APH for a written agreement request is redundant.

FCIC is removing sections 18(f)(2)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) from section 18(f)(2)(ii)(A). This change makes the similar crop language consistent with the requested crop language in section 18(f)(2)(i). A policyholder will now be able to provide a completed APH for a similar crop that was grown in the area even if the similar crop was also grown in the county, the same as is allowed for the requested crop.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(B) to clarify this section is not only applicable to crops previously planted, it is also applicable to perennial crops that have previously produced a crop. As stated above, due to the nature of how long some perennial crops take to produce after planting the crop, specifying “produced for perennial crops” instead of “planted” clarifies the language for how perennial crops are affected.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(B)(2) to be consistent with the changes made in section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(2) above, which is removing the requirement that the policyholder must insure the crop for the three previous crop years before they can substitute a year of insurance experience for a year of verifiable records. Revising this section to be consistent with section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(2) makes this change apply to the similar crop language the same as the requested crop language. This change will allow the policyholder to use their insured similar crop's information for any year that the policyholder has insured the similar crop instead of providing verifiable records.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(B)(2) to allow an entity to use the production history from a substantial beneficial interest in the entity that has a history of growing the similar crop to qualify for a written agreement. As stated above, this revision will allow a newly formed entity a pathway to qualify for a written agreement, whereas previously the newly formed entity was required to grow the crop, or a similar crop, for a minimum of three years before the new entity could qualify, even if substantial beneficial interests of the entity had previously grown the crop.

FCIC is adding a new section 18(f)(2)(ii)(B)(3) to be consistent with the changes made in section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(3), which is to state that FCIC will not consider any crop year in which the crop was planted outside of the most recent ten crop years as a year of previously planting the crop, or having produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop, unless verifiable production records are provided, or the crop was insured for that crop year. Revising this section to be consistent with section 18(f)(2)(i)(B)(3) makes this change apply to the similar crop language the same as the requested crop language.

FCIC is revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(C) to allow an entity to use the production history from a substantial beneficial interest in the entity that has a history of growing the crop to qualify for a written agreement. As stated above, this revision will allow a newly formed entity a pathway to qualify for a written agreement, whereas previously the newly formed entity was required to grow the crop, or a similar crop, for a minimum of three years before the new entity could qualify, even if substantial beneficial interests of the entity had previously grown the crop.

FCIC is also revising section 18(f)(2)(ii)(C) to clarify this section is not only applicable to crops previously planted, it is also applicable to perennial crops that have previously produced a crop. As stated above, due to the nature of how long some perennial crops take to produce after planting the crop, specifying “perennial crops that have previously produced a crop” instead of “planted” clarifies the language for how perennial crops are affected.

FCIC is removing section 18(f)(2)(vi) to be consistent with the changes made in section 18(f)(1)(vi) above. This will clarify that “all other information” is not a requirement to obtain a written agreement. The policyholder may still provide any other information they wish to support their request for written agreement but the policyholder is only required to submit the information identified in sections 18(f).

FCIC is removing section 18(g)(3) because any additional land or additional crop must meet the request deadlines of section 18(a) or 18(e) whether or not the additional land or additional crop will be added to an existing written agreement or a request for a written agreement. Therefore, this language is not needed.

FCIC is revising section 18(h)(2) to clarify the APH history used to determine 50 percent of the transitional yield for the crop, type, and practice can be from either the county or a similar county. Currently this provision only looks at similar counties. This will allow a broader review of the policyholder's APH history to determine whether at least 50 percent of the transitional yield for the crop, type, and practice has been produced.

FCIC is also revising section 18(h)(2) to clarify that this provision only applies when the crop has been previously grown. The provision appeared to deny a written agreement if the policyholder had not previously grown the requested crop, type or practice, because if the requested crop, type or practice had not previously been grown it could not have made 50 percent of the transitional yield. These changes now clearly state that a policyholder will not be denied a written agreement under this provision if they have not grown the crop, type, and practice.

FCIC is revising section 18(h)(4) to clarify this provision is also applicable if a similar crop was not previously grown in the area. As previously written, it appeared like a written agreement would automatically be denied when the actual crop was not grown. This conflicted with the similar crop provisions in section 18(f)(2)(ii) where a similar crop can be used to qualify a written agreement request for counties without actuarial documents for the crop when the requested crop had not been grown, or had not been grown long enough to complete the required three years of records. This change now clarifies that a denial will take place when the crop, or a similar crop, has not been grown, which removes any conflict with the similar crop provisions.

FCIC is also revising section 18(h)(4) to allow the crop or similar crop to be grown in the area, as growing the crop or similar crop in the area can qualify a policyholder in the county even if they have not grown the crop in the requested county.

FCIC is removing from section 18(h)(4) the phrase “based on sales receipts, contemporaneous feeding records or a contract for the crop.” By listing these options out it limits what can be shown as evidence of a market. If the policyholder is new to the area or is growing a new crop and qualifying based on a similar crop, they would not have sales receipts, contemporaneous feeding records, and unlikely to have a contract for the requested crop as most crops do not require a contract. Section 18(f)(2)(iv) already requires the name, location of, and approximate distance to the place the crop will be sold, which identifies the market for the crop.

FCIC is revising section 18(h)(5) to allow a written agreement request to be denied for a particular practice or type if that practice or type is not adapted to the county. The current language only specified crop, thus if the crop was adapted to the county it could be assumed that all practices or types are automatically considered adapted. This change allows the ability to deny a written agreement request if a particular practice or type of a crop is not adapted to the county, even if other practices or types of the crop are adapted to the county.

(j) Section 21—FCIC is revising section 21(b)(2) to update the years used in the example to reflect more recent crop years.

(k) Section 34—FCIC is revising sections 34(a)(4)(viii), (viii)(A), and (viii)(B) to allow a policyholder to select an enterprise unit for either irrigated or non-irrigated practice and choose the most appropriate unit structure on the other practice, be it a separate enterprise unit or optional or basic units. Previously, FCIC only allowed an enterprise unit for all acreage of the crop in the county. In the Agricultural Act of 2014, Congress mandated that FCIC allow separate enterprise units by irrigated and non-irrigated practices. Currently, FCIC requires that all acreage of the crop in the county be insured as an enterprise unit, one for all the irrigated acreage in the county and one for all the non-irrigated acreage in the county. Policyholders have made it clear to FCIC that, requiring all irrigated and non-irrigated acreage to separately qualify as enterprise units and to be eligible for separate enterprise units by practice both must be insured as enterprise units is not affording policyholders the flexibility to tailor their insurance coverage to meet their risk management needs. Policyholders have identified situations where both the irrigated and non-irrigated acreage do not qualify as enterprise units and they are left with a single enterprise unit for all the acreage and situations where having separate enterprise units for irrigated and non-irrigated acreage simply does not meet their risk management needs. Policyholders argue that to meet their risk management needs they need to be allowed to qualify for an enterprise unit for the practice that they determine best meets their risk management needs and another type unit for the other practice. FCIC agrees that irrigated and non-irrigated practices have inherently different risks, and some perils such as drought that can impact a non-irrigated crop may be distinctly different from those that may impact an irrigated crop such that an enterprise unit structure may only be an appropriate risk management alternative for one of the practices, but not both. In the best interest of policyholders and to allow the flexibility to match as closely as possible the inherently different risks for irrigated and non-irrigated practices, FCIC is revising the provisions to allow a policyholder to elect the most appropriate unit structure for each practice.

FCIC is revising section 34(a)(4)(viii)(C) to make this section applicable only if the policyholder elected separate enterprise units for irrigated and non-irrigated practices and it is discovered the policyholder does not qualify for an enterprise unit for the irrigated or non-irrigated practices.

FCIC is adding a new section 34(a)(4)(viii)(D) to state what happens when a policyholder elected an enterprise unit on one practice (irrigated or non-irrigated) and a different unit structure on the other practice and it is discovered the policyholder does not qualify for an enterprise unit for the irrigated or non-irrigated practice. If it is discovered the policyholder does not qualify for an enterprise unit on or before the acreage reporting date, the policyholder's unit division will be based on basic or optional units, whichever they report on their acreage report and qualify for. If it is discovered the policyholder does not qualify for an enterprise unit at any time after the acreage reporting date, the insurance provider will assign the basic unit structure.

Effective Date

The FCIC is issuing this final rule without opportunity for prior notice and comment. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts rules “relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts” from the statutory requirement for prior notice and opportunity for public comment (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)). A Federal crop insurance policy is a contract and is thus exempt from APA notice-and-comment procedures. Previously, changes made to the Federal crop insurance policies codified in the Code of Federal Regulations were required to be implemented through the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Such action was not required by the APA, which exempts contracts. Rather, the requirement originated with a notice USDA published in the Federal Register on July 24, 1971 (36 FR 13804), stating that the Department of Agriculture would, to the maximum extent practicable, use the notice-and-comment rulemaking process when making program changes, including those involving contracts. FCIC complied with this notice over the subsequent years. On October 28, 2013, USDA published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 64194) rescinding the prior notice, thereby making contracts again exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. This exemption applies to the 30-day notice prior to implementation of a rule. Therefore, the policy changes made by this final rule are effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

However, FCIC is providing a 30-day comment period and invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments. FCIC may consider the comments received and may conduct additional rulemaking based on the comments.

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasized the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule. The rule is not subject to Executive Order 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.”

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), the collections of information in this rule have been approved by OMB under control number 0563-0053.

E-Government Act Compliance

FCIC is committed to complying with the E-Government Act of 2002, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

Executive Order 13132

It has been determined under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient implications to warrant consultation with the States. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States, or on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Executive Order 13175

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under EO 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

FCIC certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Program requirements for the Federal crop insurance program are the same for all producers regardless of the size of their farming operation. For instance, all producers are required to submit an application and acreage report to establish their insurance guarantees and compute premium amounts, and all producers are required to submit a notice of loss and production information to determine the indemnity amount for an insured cause of crop loss. Whether a producer has 10 acres or 1000 acres, there is no difference in the kind of information collected. To ensure crop insurance is available to small entities, the Federal Crop Insurance Act (FCIA) authorizes FCIC to waive collection of administrative fees from limited resource farmers. FCIC believes this waiver helps to ensure that small entities are given the same opportunities as large entities to manage their risks through the use of crop insurance. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been prepared since this regulation does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, and, therefore, this regulation is exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605).

Federal Assistance Program

This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.450.

Executive Order 12372

This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 on civil justice reform. The provisions of this rule will not have a retroactive effect. The provisions of this rule will preempt State and local laws to the extent such State and local laws are inconsistent herewith. With respect to any direct action taken by FCIC or action by FCIC directing the insurance provider to take specific action under the terms of the crop insurance policy, the administrative appeal provisions published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before any action against FCIC for judicial review may be brought.

Environmental Evaluation

This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on the quality of the human environment, health, or safety. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Parts 402, 407, and 457

Crop insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Final Rule

Accordingly, as set forth in the preamble, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends 7 CFR parts 402, 407, and 457 as follows:

PART 402—CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION ENDORSEMENT 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 402 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).

2. Amend § 402.4 by revising section 6(f) to read as follows:
§ 402.4 Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement Provisions.

6. Annual Premium and Administrative Fees

(f) You will be responsible for payment of the premium established for the coverage provided under this endorsement if:

(1) USDA determines you have committed a violation of the highly erodible land conservation or wetland conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12 as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014; or

(2) You have not filed form AD-1026 with FSA for the reinsurance year by the premium billing date.

(i) Notwithstanding section 6(f)(2), you may be eligible for premium subsidy without having a timely filed form AD-1026:

(A) For the initial reinsurance year if you certify by the premium billing date for your policy that you meet the qualifications as outlined in FCIC approved procedures for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026; or

(B) If FSA approves relief for failure to timely file due to circumstances beyond your control or failure to timely provide adequate information to complete form AD-1026 in accordance with the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12.

(ii) To be eligible for premium subsidy paid on your behalf by FCIC, it is your responsibility to assure you meet all the requirements for:

(A) Compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 6(f)(1) of this section; and

(B) Filing form AD-1026 to be properly identified as in compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 6(f)(1) of this section.

PART 407—AREA RISK PROTECTION INSURANCE REGULATIONS 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 407 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(o).

4. Amend § 407.9 as follows: a. Remove the phrase “website” wherever it appears and add the word “Web site” in its place; b. In section 1: i. Revise the definition of “Good farming practices”; and ii. In the definition of “Limited resource farmer”, remove “http://www.lrftool.sc.egov.usda.gov or a successor Web site” and add “http://lrftool.sc.egov.usda.gov/LRP_Definition.aspx” in its place; c. In section 2: i. Redesignate paragraph (j)(2) as paragraph (j)(3); ii. Add a new paragraph (j)(2); iii. In paragraph (k)(2)(i)(D), remove the date of “2011” and add the date “2019” in its place and remove the date of “2010” and add the date of “2018” in its place in each instance these dates appear in the paragraph; iv. Revise paragraph (k)(3)(ii); and v. In paragraph (p)(2), remove the date of “2012” and add the date “2018” in its place and remove the date of “2013” and add the date of “2019” in its place in each instance these dates appear in the paragraph; d. Revise section 7(i).

The revisions and additions reads as follows:

§ 407.9 Area risk protection insurance policy.

1. Definitions

Good farming practices. The production methods utilized to produce the insured crop, type, and practice and allow it to make normal progress toward maturity, which are those generally recognized by agricultural experts or organic agricultural experts, depending on the practice, for the area. We may, or you may request us to, contact FCIC to determine if production methods will be considered “good farming practices.”

2. Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination

(j) * * *

(2) If you and we agree, your premium and administrative fees can be offset from any indemnity due you even if it is prior to the billing date of the premium and administrative fees.

(k) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Execute a written payment agreement in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart U, and make payments in accordance with the agreement; or

7. Annual Premium and Administrative Fees

(i) You will be ineligible for any premium subsidy paid on your behalf by FCIC for any policy issued by us if:

(1) USDA determines you have committed a violation of the highly erodible land conservation or wetland conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12 as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014; or

(2) You have not filed form AD-1026 with FSA for the reinsurance year by the premium billing date.

(i) Notwithstanding section 7(i)(2), you may be eligible for premium subsidy without having a timely filed form AD-1026:

(A) For the initial reinsurance year if you certify by the premium billing date for your policy that you meet the qualifications as outlined in FCIC approved procedures for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026; or

(B) If FSA approves relief for failure to timely file due to circumstances beyond your control or failure to timely provide adequate information to complete form AD-1026 in accordance with the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12.

(ii) To be eligible for premium subsidy paid on your behalf by FCIC, it is your responsibility to assure you meet all the requirements for:

(A) Compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 7(i)(1) of this section; and

(B) Filing form AD-1026 to be properly identified as in compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 7(i)(1) of this section.

PART 457—COMMON CROP INSURANCE REGULATIONS 5. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 457 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1506(l) and 1506(o).

6. Amend § 457.8, in the Common Crop Insurance Policy, as follows: a. Remove the phrase “Web site” wherever it appears and add the word “Web site” in its place; b. Remove the phrase “replant payment” wherever it appears and add the phrase “replanting payment” in its place; c. Under the heading “Reinsured Policies,” revise the third paragraph; d. In section 1: i. In the definition of “Actual Production History (APH),” remove “(G)” and add “G” in its place; ii. In the definition of “Cooperative Extension System,” remove the phrase “Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service” and add the phrase “National Institute of Food and Agriculture” in its place; iii. Remove the definition for “FSA farm serial number”;

iv. Add the definition for “FSA farm number”; and

v. Revise the definitions of “Good farming practices,” “Price election,” and “Replanted crop”; e. In section 2: i. Redesignate paragraph (e)(2) as paragraph (e)(3); ii. Add a new paragraph (e)(2); iii. In paragraph (f)(2)(i)(D), remove the date of “2011” and add the date “2019” in its place in both places and remove the date of “2010” and add the date “2018” in its place; iv. Revise paragraph (f)(3)(ii); v. In paragraph (f)(5), remove the date of “2010” and add the date “2018” in its place, remove the date of “2011” and add the date of “2019” in its place, and remove the date of “2012” and add the date of “2020” in its place, in each instance these dates appear in the paragraph; vii. Remove paragraph (j); and viii. Redesignate paragraph (k) as paragraph (j); f. In section 3: i. In paragraph (f)(3), add the phrase “, unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions” following the phrase “by the production reporting date”; and ii. In paragraph (h)(1), add the term “agronomic” following the phrase “you cannot prove there is a valid”; g. In section 6: i. In paragraph (a)(3)(i), remove the term “and” following the semicolon at the end of the paragraph; ii. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii)(C), remove “(5)” and remove the period at the end of the paragraph and add “; and” in its place; iii. Add paragraph (a)(3)(iii); and iv. In paragraph (c)(5), remove the term “serial” following the phrase “FSA farm”; h. Revise section 7(h); i. In section 9(a)(2)(viii)(A), remove the phrase “the Group Risk Protection Plan of Insurance or successor provisions” and add the phrase “Area Risk Protection Insurance” in its place; j. In section 17(f)(9) introductory text, remove the term “manpower” and add the term “labor” in its place; k. In section 18: i. In paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), remove the phrase “Special Provisions, or an addendum thereto,” and add the phrase “actuarial documents” in its place wherever it appears; ii. In paragraph (e)(1), add the term “or” to the end of the paragraph following the semicolon; iii. Revise paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B); iv. In paragraph (e)(2)(iii), remove the term “or” following the semicolon; v. Remove paragraph (e)(3); vi. Revise paragraph (f)(1)(ii); vii. In paragraph (f)(1)(iii), add the phrase “the crop,” following the phrase “to provide insurance for”; viii. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), remove the term “serial” following the phrase “FSA farm” and add the term “and” at the end of the paragraph following the semicolon; ix. In paragraph (f)(1)(v), remove the term “and” following the semicolon at the end of the paragraph; x. Remove paragraph (f)(1)(vi); xi. Revise paragraphs (f)(2)(i), (f)(2)(ii) introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii)(A) through (C); xii. In paragraph (f)(1)(iv), add the term “and” at the end of the paragraph following the semicolon; xiii. Remove paragraph (f)(2)(vi); xiv. In paragraph (g)(2), add the term “or” at the end of the paragraph following the semicolon; xv. Remove paragraph (g)(3); xvi. Redesignate paragraph (g)(4) as (g)(3); xvii. Revise paragraphs (h)(2) and (4); and xviii. In paragraph (h)(5), add the phrase “, practice, or type” following the phrase “experts determine the crop”; l. Revise section 21(b)(2); and m. In section 34: i. In paragraphs (a)(4)(i)(C), (D), and (E) and (a)(4)(ii), remove the term “serial” following the phrase “FSA farm” wherever it appears; ii. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(viii); and iii. In paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (c)(2) and (3), remove the term “serial” following the phrase “FSA farm” wherever it appears.

The revisions and additions reads as follows:

§ 457.8 The application and policy.

Common Crop Insurance Policy

Reinsured Policies

AGREEMENT TO INSURE: In return for the payment of the premium, and subject to all of the provisions of this policy, we agree with you to provide the insurance as stated in this policy. If there is a conflict between the Act, the regulations published at 7 CFR chapter IV, and the procedures as issued by FCIC, the order of priority is: (1) The Act; (2) the regulations; and (3) the procedures as issued by FCIC, with (1) controlling (2), etc. If there is a conflict between the policy provisions published at 7 CFR part 457 and the administrative regulations published at 7 CFR part 400, the policy provisions published at 7 CFR part 457 control. If a conflict exists among the policy, the order of priority is: (1) The Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, as applicable; (2) the Special Provisions; (3) the actuarial documents; (4) the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, as applicable; (5) the Crop Provisions; and (6) these Basic Provisions, with (1) controlling (2), etc.

1. Definitions

FSA farm number. The number assigned to the farm by the local FSA office.

Good farming practices. The production methods utilized to produce the insured crop and allow it to make normal progress toward maturity and produce at least the yield used to determine the production guarantee or amount of insurance, including any adjustments for late planted acreage, which are those generally recognized by agricultural experts or organic agricultural experts, depending on the practice, for the area. We may, or you may request us to, contact FCIC to determine if production methods will be considered “good farming practices.”

Price election. The amount contained in the actuarial documents that is the value per pound, bushel, ton, carton, or other applicable unit of measure for the purposes of determining premium and indemnity under the policy. A price election is not applicable for crops for which revenue protection is available.

Replanted crop. (1) The same agricultural commodity replanted on the same acreage as the insured crop for harvest in the same crop year if:

(i) The replanting is specifically made optional by the policy and you elect to replant the crop and insure it under the policy covering the first insured crop; or

(ii) Replanting is required by the policy.

(2) Unless otherwise specified in the Special Provisions, the crop will be considered an insured replanted crop and no replanting payment will be paid if we have determined it is not practical to replant the insured crop and you choose to plant the acreage to the same insured crop within or prior to the late planting period or after the final planting date if no late planting period is applicable. If we determine it is not practical to replant and you plant the acreage to the same insured crop, any indemnity will be based on the greater of:

(i) Our appraised production on the initially planted crop;

(ii) Our subsequent appraisal of the replanted crop if the replanted crop is not harvested; or

(iii) The harvested production from the replanted crop.

2. Life of Policy, Cancellation, and Termination

(e) * * *

(2) If you and we agree, your premium and administrative fees can be offset from any indemnity or prevented planting payment due you even if it is prior to the billing date of the premium and administrative fees.

(f) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Execute a written payment agreement, in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart U, and make payments in accordance with the agreement; or

6. Report of Acreage

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) If you plant the insured crop on or within five days prior to the final planting date and the final planting date is five or fewer days prior to the acreage reporting date, you must submit an acreage report no later than five days after the acreage reporting date (for example, if the final planting date contained in the Special Provisions is July 10, the acreage reporting date contained in the Special Provisions is July 15 and you plant the insured crop on July 9, you have until July 20 to submit an acreage report for the insured crop).

7. Annual Premium and Administrative Fees

(h) You will be ineligible for any premium subsidy paid on your behalf by FCIC for any policy issued by us if:

(1) USDA determines you have committed a violation of the highly erodible land conservation or wetland conservation provisions of 7 CFR part 12 as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014; or

(2) You have not filed form AD-1026 with FSA for the reinsurance year by the premium billing date.

(i) Notwithstanding section 7(h)(2), you may be eligible for premium subsidy without having a timely filed form AD-1026:

(A) For the initial reinsurance year if you certify by the premium billing date for your policy that you meet the qualifications as outlined in FCIC approved procedures for producers who are new to farming, new to crop insurance, a new entity, or have not previously been required to file form AD-1026; or

(B) If FSA approves relief for failure to timely file due to circumstances beyond your control or failure to timely provide adequate information to complete form AD-1026 in accordance with the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 12.

(ii) To be eligible for premium subsidy paid on your behalf by FCIC, it is your responsibility to assure you meet all the requirements for:

(A) Compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 7(h)(1) of this section; and

(B) Filing form AD-1026 to be properly identified as in compliance with the conservation provisions specified in section 7(h)(1) of this section.

18. Written Agreements

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Establish optional units in accordance with FCIC procedures that otherwise would not be allowed or change the premium rate or transitional yield for designated high-risk land;

(f) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) A completed APH (only for crop policies that require APH) based on verifiable records of actual yields for the crop and county for which the written agreement is being requested (the actual yields do not necessarily have to be from the same physical acreage for which you are requesting a written agreement), and verifiable records of actual yields if required by FCIC;

(2) * * *

(i) For a crop you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) have previously planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) in the county or area for at least three years:

(A) A completed APH (only for crop policies that require APH) based on verifiable production records of actual yields for the crop; and

(B) Verifiable production records for at least the three most recent crop years in which the crop was planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop):

(1) The verifiable production records do not necessarily have to be from the same physical acreage for which you are requesting a written agreement;

(2) Verifiable production records do not have to be submitted for any year you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) have insured the crop in the county or area and have certified the yields on the applicable production reports or the yields are based on your insurance claim (although you are not required to submit production records, you still must maintain production records in accordance with section 21); and

(3) FCIC will not consider any crop year in which the crop was planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) outside of the most recent ten crop years as a year of previously planting the crop (or having produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop), unless verifiable production records are provided, or the crop was insured for that crop year;

(ii) For a crop you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) have not previously planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) in the county or area for at least three years:

(A) A completed APH (only for crop policies that require APH) based on verifiable production records of actual yields for the similar crop;

(B) Verifiable production records for at least the three most recent crop years in which the similar crop was planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) in the county or area:

(1) The verifiable production records for the similar crop do not necessarily have to be from the same physical acreage for which you are requesting a written agreement;

(2) Verifiable production records do not have to be submitted for any crop year you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) have insured the similar crop in the county or area and have certified the yields on the applicable production reports or the yields are based on your insurance claim (although you are not required to submit production records, you still must maintain production records in accordance with section 21); and

(3) FCIC will not consider any crop year in which the similar crop was planted (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) outside of the most recent ten crop years as a year of previously planting the similar crop (or having produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop), unless verifiable production records are provided, or the similar crop was insured, for that crop year;

(C) If you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) have at least one year of production records, but less than three years of production records, for the crop in the county or area but have production records for a similar crop in the county or area such that the combination of both sets of records results in at least three years of production records, you must provide the information required in sections 18(f)(2)(i)(A) and (B) for the years you (or anyone with a substantial beneficial interest in you) planted the crop (or produced a crop if the crop is a perennial crop) in the county or area and the information required in sections 18(f)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) regarding the similar crop for the remaining years; and

(h) * * *

(2) Your APH history demonstrates you have not produced at least 50 percent of the transitional yield for the crop, type, and practice obtained from the county, or a county with similar agronomic conditions and risk exposure, when previously grown;

(4) The crop, or a similar crop, was not previously grown in the county or area, or there is no evidence of a market for the crop (applicable only for counties without actuarial documents); or

21. Access to Insured Crop and Records, and Record Retention

(b) * * *

(2) All records used to establish the amount of production you certified on your production reports used to compute your approved yield for three years after the calendar date for the end of the insurance period for the crop year for which you initially certified such records, unless such records have already been provided to us (e.g., if you are a new insured and you certify 2015 through 2018 crop year production records in 2019 to determine your approved yield for the 2019 crop year, you must retain all records from the 2015 through 2018 crop years through the 2022 crop year. If you subsequently certify records of the 2019 crop year in 2020 to determine your approved yield for the 2020 crop year, you must retain the 2019 crop year records through the 2023 crop year and so forth for each subsequent year of production records certified); and

34. Units.

(a) * * *

(4) * * *

(viii) If allowed by the actuarial documents, you may elect separate enterprise units for irrigated or non-irrigated practices.

(A) You may elect one enterprise unit for all irrigated practices or one enterprise unit for all non-irrigated practices or enterprise units for both.

(B) You must separately meet the requirements in section 34(a)(4) for each enterprise unit.

(C) If you elected separate enterprise units for both irrigated and non-irrigated practices and we discover you do not qualify for an enterprise unit for the irrigated or non-irrigated practice and such discovery is made:

(1) On or before the acreage reporting date, you may elect to insure all acreage of the crop in the county in one enterprise unit provided you meet the requirements in section 34(a)(4), or your unit division will be based on basic or optional units, whichever you report on your acreage report and qualify for; or

(2) At any time after the acreage reporting date, your unit structure will be one enterprise unit provided you meet the requirements in section 34(a)(4). Otherwise, we will assign the basic unit structure.

(D) If you elected an enterprise unit on one practice (irrigated or non-irrigated) and a different unit structure on the other practice and we discover you do not qualify for an enterprise unit for the irrigated or non-irrigated practice and such discovery is made:

(1) On or before the acreage reporting date, your unit division will be based on basic or optional units, whichever you report on your acreage report and qualify for; or

(2) At any time after the acreage reporting date, we will assign the basic unit structure.

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2017. Heather Manzano, Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 2017-25330 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-08-P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Parts 25 and 195 [Docket ID OCC-2017-0008] RIN 1557-AE15 FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 228 [Docket No. R-1574] RIN 7100-AE84 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION 12 CFR Part 345 RIN 3064-AE58 Community Reinvestment Act Regulations AGENCY:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

ACTION:

Joint final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) (collectively, the Agencies) are amending their regulations implementing the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The Agencies are modifying the existing definitions of “home mortgage loan” and “consumer loan,” related cross references, and the public file content requirements to conform to recent revisions made by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau) to Regulation C, which implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). This final rule also removes obsolete references to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP).

DATES:

This rule is effective on January 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

OCC: Emily R. Boyes, Attorney, Community and Consumer Law Division, (202) 649-6350; Allison Hester-Haddad, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-5490; for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597; or Vonda J. Eanes, Director for CRA and Fair Lending Policy, Compliance Risk Policy Division, (202) 649-5470, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

Board: Amal S. Patel, Senior Supervisory Consumer Financial Services Analyst, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, (202) 912-7879; Cathy Gates, Senior Project Manager, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, (202) 452-2099, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

FDIC: Patience R. Singleton, Senior Policy Analyst, Supervisory Policy Branch, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, (202) 898-6859; Sharon B. Vejvoda, Senior Examination Specialist, Examination Branch, Division of Depositor and Consumer Protection, (202) 898-3881; Richard M. Schwartz, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-7424; or Sherry Ann Betancourt, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-6560, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The OCC, the Board, and the FDIC implement the CRA (12 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) through their CRA regulations. See 12 CFR parts 25, 195, 228, and 345. The CRA is designed to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which an institution is chartered. The CRA regulations establish the framework and criteria by which the Agencies assess a financial institution's record of helping to meet the credit needs of its community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. Under the CRA regulations, the Agencies apply different evaluation standards for financial institutions of different asset sizes and types.

The Agencies also publish the Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment to provide guidance on the interpretation and application of the CRA regulations to agency personnel, financial institutions, and the public.

On September 20, 2017, the Agencies published a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to amend their regulations implementing the CRA.1 The Agencies proposed to amend the definitions of “home mortgage loan” and “consumer loan” and the public file content requirements to conform to revisions made by the Bureau to its Regulation C, which implements HMDA (2015 HMDA Rule).2 The Agencies also proposed to make technical amendments to remove unnecessary cross references as a result of the proposed amended definitions, and to remove an obsolete reference to the NSP. The comment period for the Agencies' joint proposed rulemaking ended on October 20, 2017.

1 82 FR 43910 (Sept. 20, 2017).

2See 80 FR 66127 (Oct. 28, 2015), as amended by 82 FR 19142 (Aug. 24, 2017).

Together, the Agencies received two comment letters on the proposed amendments. One comment was from a community organization and the other from a financial institution. Both commenters supported the changes proposed by the Agencies. The commenters also made additional suggestions not related to the proposal. These comments are explained in more detail in the sections they relate to. As explained below, the Agencies are finalizing the amendments as proposed.

II. Amendments To Conform the CRA Regulations to Recent Revisions to the Bureau's Regulation C Definition of “Home Mortgage Loan”

The CRA regulations specify the type of lending and other activities that examiners evaluate to assess a financial institution's CRA performance. The regulations provide several categories of loans that may be evaluated to determine a financial institution's performance under the retail lending test, one of which is home mortgage loans. 12 CFR __.22. The current CRA regulations define a “home mortgage loan” to mean a “home improvement loan,” “home purchase loan,” or a “refinancing” as those terms are currently defined in 12 CFR 1003.2 of the Bureau's Regulation C. 12 CFR __.12(l). However, effective January 1, 2018, the 2015 HMDA Rule revises the scope of loans reportable under Regulation C. In some cases, the revised scope of loans under Regulation C is broader, and in other cases more limited. Effective January 1, 2018, Regulation C will require covered financial institutions to report applications for, and originations and purchases of, “covered loans” that are secured by a dwelling. A “covered loan” is defined in 12 CFR 1003.2(e) to mean a closed-end mortgage loan, as defined in § 1003.2(d), or an open-end line of credit, as defined in § 1003.2(o), that is not an excluded transaction under 12 CFR 1003.3(c).3

3 Amended Regulation C retains existing categories of excluded transactions, clarifies some categories of excluded transactions, and expands the existing exclusion for agricultural-purpose transactions. Effective January 1, 2018, the following transactions will not be reportable under Regulation C:

1. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit originated or purchased by a financial institution acting in a fiduciary capacity;

2. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit secured by a lien on unimproved land;

3. Temporary financing;

4. The purchase of an interest in a pool of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit;

5. The purchase solely of the right to service closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit;

6. The purchase of closed-end mortgage loans or open-end lines of credit as part of a merger or acquisition, or as part of the acquisition of all of the assets and liabilities of a branch office as defined in 12 CFR 1003.2(c);

7. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit, or an application of a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit, for which the total dollar amount is less than $500;

8. The purchase of a partial interest in a closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit;

9. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit used primarily for agricultural purposes;

10. A closed-end mortgage loan or open-end line of credit that is or will be made primarily for a business or commercial purpose, unless the closed-end mortgage loan or open-end equity line of credit is a home improvement loan under § 1003.2(i), a home purchase under § 1003.2(j), or a refinancing under § 1003.2(p);

11. A closed-end mortgage loan, if the financial institution originated fewer than 25 closed-end mortgage loans in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded closed-end mortgage loan as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for closed-end mortgage loans that it receives, closed-end mortgage loans that it originates, and closed-end mortgage loans that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded closed-end mortgage loan; or

12. An open-end equity line of credit, if the financial institution originated fewer than 500 open-end equity lines of credit in either of the two preceding calendar years; a financial institution may collect, record, report, and disclose information, as described in §§ 1003.4 and 1003.5, for such an excluded open-end line of credit as though it were a covered loan, provided that the financial institution complies with such requirements for all applications for open-end lines of credit that it receives, open-end lines of credit that it originates, and open-end lines of credit that it purchases that otherwise would have been covered loans during the calendar year during which final action is taken on the excluded open-end line of credit (the threshold of 500 open-end lines of credit is temporary and applies only to calendar years 2018 and 2019; absent action from the Bureau, the threshold for reporting open-end lines of credit reverts to 100 such lines effective January 1, 2020); or

13. A transaction that provided or, in the case of an application, proposed to provide new funds to the applicant or borrower in advance of being consolidated in a New York State consolidation, extension, and modification agreement classified as a supplemental mortgage under New York Tax Law section 255; the transaction is excluded only if final action on the consolidation was taken in the same calendar year as final action on the new funds transaction.

To conform the CRA definition of “home mortgage loan” to the revisions in Regulation C that will become effective on January 1, 2018, the Agencies proposed to revise the current definition of “home mortgage loan” in their CRA regulations to mean a “closed-end mortgage loan” or an “open-end line of credit,” as those terms are defined under new 12 CFR 1003.2(d) and (o), respectively, and as may be amended from time to time, and that is not an excluded transaction under new 12 CFR 1003.3(c)(1)-(10) and (13), as may be amended from time to time.4

4 On September 13, 2017, the Bureau published in the Federal Register a final rule (2017 HMDA Rule) amending the 2015 HMDA Rule. The 2017 HMDA Rule finalizes a proposal issued by the Bureau on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19142) to address technical errors, ease the burden associated with certain reporting requirements, and to clarify some key terms. The 2017 HMDA Rule also finalizes a proposal issued by the Bureau on July 14, 2017 (82 FR 33455), to temporarily increase the institutional and transactional coverage thresholds for open-end lines of credit. See http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201708_cfpb_final-rule_home-mortgage-disclosure_regulation-c.pdf. The 2017 HMDA Rule adds a new exclusion from reporting HMDA data for certain transactions concerning New York consolidation, extension, and modification agreements (also known as NY CEMAs) under new § 1003.3(c)(13).

As a result of the revisions to the “home mortgage loan” definition, the manner in which some loan transactions are considered under CRA will be affected. As the Agencies explained in the proposed rule, effective January 1, 2018, home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling, which are currently required to be reported under Regulation C, will no longer be reportable transactions under the 2015 HMDA Rule. Therefore, also effective January 1, 2018, for purposes of CRA, home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling may be considered at the option of the financial institution. A financial institution that opts to have its home improvement loans considered would need to collect and maintain data on these loans in machine-readable form under the category of “other secured consumer loan” or “other unsecured consumer loan,” as appropriate. See 12 CFR __.12(j)(3) or (4). Notwithstanding an institution's option, home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling may still be evaluated by the Agencies under the lending test set out under 12 CFR __.22(a)(1), in circumstances where consumer lending is so significant a portion of an institution's lending by activity and dollar volume of loans that the lending test evaluation would not meaningfully reflect lending performance if consumer loans were excluded.

Home equity lines of credit secured by a dwelling, which are currently reported at the option of the financial institution under Regulation C, will be covered loans under the 2015 HMDA Rule. Effective January 1, 2018, financial institutions that meet the reporting requirements under the 2015 HMDA Rule will be required to collect, maintain, and report data on home equity lines of credit secured by a dwelling. For purposes of CRA consideration, in the case of financial institutions that report closed-end mortgage loans and/or home equity lines of credit under the 2015 HMDA Rule, those loans would be considered as home mortgage loans under the amended definition of “home mortgage loan.” The effect of this revision to the home mortgage loan definition will vary depending upon the amount and characteristics of the financial institution's mortgage loan portfolio. As with all aspects of an institution's CRA performance evaluation, the performance context of the institution will affect how the Agencies will consider home equity lines of credit. For financial institutions that would not be required to report these transactions under Regulation C, examiners may review the relevant files and consider these loans for CRA performance on a sampling basis under the home mortgage loan category.

The Agencies received one comment addressing the proposed revision. This commenter supported amending the definition of “home mortgage loan” in the Agencies' CRA regulations to conform to the changes in the scope of Regulation C. However, the commenter noted that some banks expressed concern that including home equity loans in CRA evaluations could have the effect of lowering the percentage of loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers and suggested that the Agencies consider evaluating home equity lending separately from other types of home lending. This commenter also urged the Agencies to consider loan purchases separately from originations during the CRA evaluation.

The commenter's suggestions to consider home equity lending separately from other home mortgage lending and to consider purchases separately from originations would require that the Agencies reconsider how various loan types are evaluated under the CRA. The Agencies did not propose these changes and believe these suggestions would be better considered in connection with updates to the Agencies' CRA examination procedures and/or guidance. Accordingly, the Agencies are finalizing the revised definition of “home mortgage loan” as proposed. The Agencies have used the scope of HMDA-reportable transactions to define “home mortgage loan” in the CRA regulations since 1995. The Agencies will review any amendments made to the cross-referenced definitions in HMDA to ensure that such cross-referenced terms continue to meet the statutory objectives of the CRA.

Definition of “Consumer Loan”

The CRA regulations provide a definition of “consumer loan” to define a category of loans that examiners should evaluate to determine a financial institution's performance under the retail lending test apart from home mortgage, small business, or small farm loans. 12 CFR __.22. The current CRA regulations define a “consumer loan” to mean a loan to one or more individuals for household, family, or other personal expenditures and that is not a home mortgage, small business, or small farm loan. See 12 CFR __. 12(j). Currently, a “home equity loan” is one of five loan categories listed under the definition of “consumer loan” and is defined as a “consumer loan secured by a residence of the borrower” under 12 CFR __.12(j)(3). As noted above, the Agencies proposed to define “home mortgage loan” as a “closed-end mortgage loan” or an “open-end line of credit” as those terms are defined in §§ 1003.2(d) and 1003.2(o), respectively, of Regulation C. Under Regulation C, a closed-end mortgage loan is defined “as an extension of credit secured by a lien on a dwelling,” and therefore, includes a home equity loan secured by a dwelling, per 12 CFR 1003.2(d), effective January 1, 2018. As a result, the Agencies believed it was no longer appropriate to separately categorize home equity loans under the CRA definition of “consumer loan” because both home equity loans and home equity lines of credit would be captured by the revised CRA definition of “home mortgage loan.” Accordingly, the Agencies proposed to remove the term “home equity loan” from the list of consumer loan categories provided under the definition of “consumer loan” in 12 CFR __.12(j).

The Agencies received one comment addressing the proposed revision. This commenter supported amending the definition of “consumer lending” in the Agencies' CRA regulations to conform to changes in the scope of loans reportable under Regulation C that will be effective January 1, 2018. This commenter further urged the Agencies to have examiners evaluate consumer lending, including unsecured home improvement lending, during CRA exams when such lending constitutes a “significant amount” of the bank's business rather than a “substantial majority,” as is currently required under 12 CFR __.22(a)(1).

The Agencies did not address in the proposal how consumer lending should be evaluated under the retail lending test and therefore, addressing these recommendations is outside the scope of this final rule. Accordingly, the Agencies are finalizing the definition of “consumer lending” as proposed. Note, however, that in accordance with their statutory responsibilities, the Agencies regularly review examination policies, procedures, and guidance to better serve the goals of the CRA.

Changes to the Content of the Public File

Currently, the Agencies' CRA regulations require that financial institutions maintain a public file of certain information and specify, among other things, the information to be maintained and made available to the public upon request. 12 CFR __.43(a)-(d). If a financial institution is required to report HMDA data under Regulation C, it must also include a copy of the HMDA disclosure statement (provided by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council) in its CRA public file for each of the prior two calendar years. 12 CFR __.43(b)(2). Effective January 1, 2018, Regulation C will no longer require financial institutions to provide this HMDA disclosure statement directly to the public. Instead, Regulation C will only require financial institutions to provide a notice that clearly conveys to the public that they can obtain a copy of the financial institution's disclosure statement on the Bureau's Web site. 12 CFR 1003.5(b). As a result, the Agencies proposed to amend the CRA public file content requirements under 12 CFR __.43(b)(2) for consistency and to reduce burden. Specifically, the Agencies proposed that institutions that are required to report HMDA data would only maintain the notice required under section 1003.5(b) of Regulation C in their CRA public file, rather than a copy of the HMDA disclosure statement. Nevertheless, a financial institution must maintain in its public file the HMDA disclosure statements required by the CRA regulations that are not available on the Bureau's Web site and, therefore, should not remove HMDA disclosure statements from their CRA public files if that information is not available on the Bureau's Web site.

The Agencies received no comments on the proposed changes to the CRA public file content requirements. Accordingly, the Agencies are adopting the revisions as proposed.

Technical Amendments Removal of “Home Equity Loan” as a Category of Consumer Loans

As discussed above, the Agencies proposed to remove “home equity loans” as a category of loans included as consumer loans because such loans would be captured by the revised definition of “home mortgage loan.” 12 CFR __.12(j). Accordingly, the Agencies proposed to amend 12 CFR __.22, Lending Test, and 12 CFR __.42, Data Collection, Reporting, and Disclosure to remove any cross-reference to home equity loan as a category of “consumer loans.”

The Agencies received no comments on the proposed amendments to 12 CFR __.22 and 12 CFR __.42 and finalizes them as proposed.

Technical Revision to the “Community Development Loan” Definition

The current CRA regulations' definition of “community development loan” contains a cross-reference to appendix A of Regulation C in order to incorporate a description of a multifamily dwelling loan that is provided in appendix A of Regulation C.

The Agencies proposed to remove this cross-reference to appendix A because appendix A of Regulation C will no longer exist. The 2015 HMDA Rule moved the substantive requirements found in existing appendix A to the regulation text and commentary of Regulation C and also eliminated paper reporting, effective January 1, 2019. As a result, any cross-reference to appendix A of Regulation C will become obsolete. The Agencies further proposed to instead cross-reference the newly defined term of “multifamily dwelling” contained in § 1003.2(n) of Regulation C.

The Agencies received no comments in connection with proposed 12 CFR __.12(h) and are finalizing as proposed.

Removal of Obsolete Language Related to the NSP

The Agencies also proposed to remove language in the CRA regulations related to the NSP. The CRA regulations currently define “community development” to include qualifying NSP-related activities that benefit low-, moderate-, and middle-income individuals and geographies in NSP-target areas.5 The NSP was authorized by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 6 to stabilize communities suffering from foreclosures and abandonment. However, after March 2016, NSP-eligible activities no longer received consideration as “community development” under the CRA regulations and therefore, any reference to such activities is no longer needed. Accordingly, the Agencies proposed to amend 12 CFR __.12 to revise the definition of “community development” by removing qualifying NSP-related activities that benefit low-, moderate-, and middle-income individuals and geographies in NSP-targeted areas.

5 75 FR 79278 (Dec. 20, 2010).

6 Public Law 110-289, 122 Stat. 2654 (2008).

The Agencies received one comment in connection with this proposed revision, which supported the Agencies' efforts to streamline and eliminate the obsolete reference. This commenter also suggested that the Agencies consider consolidating the categories of economic development and revitalization and stabilization under the “community development” definition, as many loans fit into both categories, and create a new category for review and focus of veterans' activities.

The Agencies did not propose to make these additional changes to the definition of “community development” and therefore, such recommendations did not receive the benefit of notice and public comment. Accordingly, the Agencies are finalizing the revisions to 12 CFR __.12 as proposed.

Effective Date

The Agencies proposed an effective date of January 1, 2018, to conform to the effective date of the revisions resulting from the Bureau's Regulation C. The Agencies received no comments on the proposed effective date. Therefore, this final rule becomes effective on January 1, 2018.

Regulatory Analysis Regulatory Flexibility Act

OCC: In general, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency, in connection with a final rule, to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis describing the impact of the final rule on small entities or to certify that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For purposes of the RFA, the Small Business Administration defines small entities as those with $550 million or less in assets for commercial banks and savings institutions and $38.5 million or less in assets for trust companies.

The scope of the OCC's CRA rule generally covers national banks, insured Federal branches, and Federal and state savings associations. The OCC currently supervises approximately 956 small entities. The FDIC currently supervises approximately 44 small entities that are state savings associations. Although the final rule would apply to all of these small entities, we anticipate that the final rule would result only in de minimis compliance costs for these OCC- and FDIC-supervised institutions.

Further, any burden that may be associated with changes made to Regulation C HMDA reporting are a result of Bureau rulemakings. However, the final rule may reduce regulatory costs for covered financial institutions that are required to report HMDA data because those institutions would no longer be required to keep two years of HMDA disclosure statements in their CRA public file. Instead, covered financial institutions would provide a notice in the public file with a Web site address indicating where the HMDA disclosure statements can be accessed. Among the small entities that the OCC currently supervises, 518 are HMDA reporters. Among the small entities that the FDIC currently supervises, approximately 35 are HMDA reporters. By not having to keep paper copies of the HMDA disclosure statements in their CRA public file, the OCC estimates that the savings for these small entities will be less than $1,142 (10 hours × $114.20 per hour) per entity.

Therefore, the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the OCC certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Board: An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was included in the proposal in accordance with section 3(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). In the IRFA, the Board requested comment on the effect of the proposed rule on small entities and on any significant alternatives that would reduce the regulatory burden on small entities. The Board did not receive any comments. The RFA requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis unless the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.7 In accordance with section 3(a) of the RFA, the Board has reviewed the final regulation. Based on its analysis, and for the reasons stated below, the Board certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

7See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

There are 820 Board-supervised state member banks, and 566 are identified as small entities according to the RFA.8 The Board estimates that the final rule will have generally small economic effects for small entities. The new changes to the content requirements of the CRA public file may reduce recordkeeping burden for covered financial institutions. Additionally, the Board expects that the changes to definitions within the CRA regulations will have little impact on supervisory assessments of CRA performance generally, but could affect some financial institutions more than others depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio.

8 Call Report Data as of June 30, 2017.

The final rule changes the content requirements of the CRA public file for financial institutions that are HMDA reporters. Financial institutions that are required to report HMDA data can maintain the same notice required under Regulation C in their CRA public file of their branch office, rather than the HMDA disclosure statement currently required. By allowing covered financial institutions to utilize a shorter disclosure, the final rule may reduce regulatory costs. As previously stated, there are 566 Board-supervised entities that are identified as small entities by the terms of the RFA. Of those, 304 were HMDA filers in 2016.9 All FDIC-insured financial institutions reported having 31,096 branch offices, for an average of 7.9 branches per financial institution.10 The Board assumes it takes one employee 10 minutes at a rate of $76.65 an hour 11 to print and file the HMDA notification per year and place it in the CRA public file. This equates to an estimated annual printing and filing cost of $12.78 per branch office. Therefore, complying with the new rule will save small entities an estimated $30,692.45 in costs per year.12

9 2016 HMDA Data and Call Report Data as of June 30, 2017.

10 2015 Summary of Deposits Data.

11 Estimated total hourly compensation for Compliance Officers in the Depository Credit Intermediation sector as of June 2017. The estimate includes the May 2016 90th percentile hourly wage rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment, and Wage Estimates. This wage rate has been adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers between May 2016 and June 2017 (1.85 percent) and grossed up by 35.5 percent to account for non-monetary compensation as reported by the June 2017 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Data.

12 Assuming that each covered institution will no longer have to print and file the HMDA disclosure statement, the recordkeeping burden for each branch office declines by 10 minutes for all 7.9 branch offices, for all 304 small entities that are HMDA filers.

The Board expects the changes to definitions within the CRA regulations generally to have little economic effect for small entities, however the amendments could pose some effects for individual entities depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio. As noted previously, in some cases the revised scope of loans under Regulation C is broader, and in other cases, it is more limited. These changes could affect supervisory assessment of CRA performance for small entities. However, it is unlikely that small financial institutions will be significantly affected given that HMDA reporting will be limited to financial institutions that originate more than 25 home mortgage loans or 100 home equity lines of credit each year.13 There could be a net effect on CRA examination results for some small entities which may, in turn, affect the future behavior of those financial institutions. But, it is difficult to accurately determine the likelihood and degree of aggregate lending or economic effects that may result because they are dependent upon firm-specific business plans and propensities to lend.

13 The open-end lines of credit threshold will increase from 100 to 500 loans on a temporary basis for a period of two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019) pursuant to the 2017 HMDA Rule. The Bureau is not making the threshold increase for open-end lines of credit permanent at this time. Absent further action by the Bureau, effective January 1, 2020, the open-end threshold will be restored to the 2015 HMDA Rule level of 100 open-end lines of credit, and creditors originating between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit will need to begin collecting and reporting HMDA data for open-end lines of credit at that time.

Finally, Board-supervised small entities will likely benefit from the harmonization of definitions within the CRA regulations with HMDA data reporting requirements by avoiding unnecessary confusion and costs. Inconsistencies between CRA examination metrics and the HMDA data, which is used to assess CRA performance, could lead to misleading results causing small entities to change future lending behavior.

FDIC: The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) generally requires that, in connection with a final rule, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a final rule on small entities (defined in regulations promulgated by the Small Business Administration to include banking organizations with total assets of less than or equal to $550 million). A regulatory flexibility analysis, however, is not required if the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and publishes its certification and a short explanatory statement in the Federal Register together with the final rule. For the reasons provided below, the FDIC certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

There are 3,717 FDIC-supervised financial institutions, and 2,990 are identified as small entities according to the RFA.14 The FDIC estimates that the final rule will have generally small economic effects for small entities. The new changes to the content requirements of the CRA public file may reduce regulatory costs for covered financial institutions. Additionally, the FDIC expects that the changes to definitions within the CRA regulations will have little impact on supervisory assessments of CRA performance generally, but could affect some financial institutions more than others depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio.

14 Call Report Data as of June 30, 1017.

The final rule changes the content requirements of the CRA public file for financial institutions that are HMDA reporters. Financial institutions required to report HMDA data can maintain the same notice required under Regulation C in the CRA public file of their branch office, rather than the HMDA disclosure statement currently required. By allowing covered financial institutions to utilize a shorter disclosure, the final rule may reduce regulatory costs. As previously stated, there are 2,990 FDIC-supervised entities that are identified as small entities by the terms of the RFA. Of those, 1,549 were HMDA filers in 2016.15 These 1,549 FDIC-insured financial institutions reported having 6,845 branch offices, for an average of 4.4 branches per financial institution.16 The FDIC assumes it takes one employee 10 minutes at a rate of $76.65 an hour 17 to print and file the HMDA notification per year and place it in the CRA public file. This equates to an estimated annual printing and filing cost of $12.78 per branch office. Therefore, complying with the new rule may save small entities an estimated $87,069 in costs per year.18

15 2016 HMDA Data and Call Report Data as of June 30, 2017.

16 2017 Summary of Deposits Data.

17 Estimated total hourly compensation for Compliance Officers in the Depository Credit Intermediation sector as of June 2017. The estimate includes the May 2016 90th percentile hourly wage rate reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment, and Wage Estimates. This wage rate has been adjusted for changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers between May 2016 and June 2017 (1.85 percent) and grossed up by 35.5 percent to account for non-monetary compensation as reported by the June 2017 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Data.

18 Assuming that each covered institution will no longer have to print and file the HMDA disclosure statement, the recordkeeping burden for each branch office declines by 10 minutes for all 4.4 branch offices, for all 1,549 small entities that are HMDA filers.

The FDIC expects the changes to definitions within the CRA regulations generally to have little economic effect for small entities; however, the amendments could pose some effects for individual entities depending upon the amount and characteristics of their loan portfolio. As noted previously, in some cases the revised scope of loans under Regulation C is broader, and in other cases, it is more limited. These changes could affect supervisory assessment of CRA performance for small entities. However, it is unlikely that small financial institutions will be significantly affected given that HMDA reporting will be limited to financial institutions that originate more than 25 home mortgage loans or 100 home equity lines of credit each year.19 There could be a net effect on CRA examination results for some small entities which may, in turn, affect the future behavior of those financial institutions. But, it is difficult to accurately determine the likelihood and degree of aggregate lending or economic effects that may result because they are dependent upon firm-specific business plans and propensities to lend.

19 The open-end lines of credit threshold will increase from 100 to 500 loans on a temporary basis for a period of two years (calendar years 2018 and 2019) pursuant to the 2017 HMDA Rule. The Bureau is not making the threshold increase for open-end lines of credit permanent at this time. Absent further action by the Bureau, effective January 1, 2020, the open-end threshold will be restored to the 2015 HMDA Rule level of 100 open-end lines of credit, and creditors originating between 100 and 499 open-end lines of credit will need to begin collecting and reporting HMDA data for open-end lines of credit at this time.

Finally, FDIC-supervised small entities would likely benefit from the harmonization of definitions within the CRA regulations with HMDA data reporting requirements by avoiding unnecessary confusion and costs. Inconsistencies between CRA examination metrics and the HMDA data, which is used to assess CRA performance, could lead to misleading results causing small entities to change future lending behavior.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Certain provisions of the final rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently-valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The information collection requirements contained in this final rule have been submitted by the OCC and FDIC to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and § 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR part 1320). The OCC and the FDIC submitted the collection of information at the proposed rule stage as well and were directed by OMB to examine public comment and resubmit at the final rule stage. The OMB control number for the OCC is 1557-0160 and the FDIC is 3064-0092. The OMB control number for the Board is 7100-0197 and will be extended, with revision. The Board reviewed the final rule under the authority delegated to the Board by OMB.

Under this final rule, effective January 1, 2018, financial institutions required to collect data under the CRA would also be required to collect data for open-end lines of credit in MSA and non-MSA areas where they have no branch or home office. The Agencies estimate that this change will not result in an increase in burden under the currently approved CRA information collections because the burden associated with the above-described requirement is accounted for under the HMDA information collections.20

20 OMB Control Number 1557-0159 (OCC); OMB Control Number 7100-0247 (Board); and OMB Control Number 3064-0046 (FDIC).

The Agencies have determined that the revised definition of “home mortgage loan” to include home equity lines of credit and to exclude home improvement loans that are not secured by a dwelling (i.e., home improvement loans that are unsecured or that are secured by some other type of collateral) does not warrant a change to the current burden estimates.

The Agencies received no comments on the PRA. However, the Agencies invite comments on:

(a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the Agencies' functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

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

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

(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to:

OCC: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. Comments may be sent to: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Attention: 1557-0160, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Washington, DC 20219. In addition, comments may be sent by fax to (571) 465-4326 or by electronic mail to [email protected] You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

Board: Comments on aspects of this rule that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent by any of the following methods:

Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

Mail: Ann E. Misback, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW.) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

FDIC: The FDIC invites comments on aspects of this rule that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates. Comments may be sent by any of the following methods:

Agency Web site: https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html.

Follow instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site.

Email: [email protected] Include the RIN 3064-AE58 on the subject line of the message.

Mail: Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Attention: Comments, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 550 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20429.

Hand Delivery: Comments may be hand delivered to the guard station at the rear of the 550 17th Street Building (located on F Street) on business days between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

Instructions: All comments received must include the agency name and RIN 3064-AE58 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/federal/propose.html, including any personal information provided. Paper copies of public comments may be ordered from the FDIC Public Information Center, 3501 North Fairfax Drive, Room E-1002, Arlington, VA 22226 by telephone at (877) 275-3342 or (703) 562-2200.

A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the Agencies: By mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., # 10235, Washington, DC 20503; by facsimile to (202) 395-5806; or by email to: [email protected], Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.

Information Collection

Title of Information Collection: Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Disclosure Requirements Associated with the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Frequency of Response: Annually.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

Respondents:

OCC: National banks, trust companies, savings associations (except special purpose savings associations pursuant to 12 CFR 195.11(c)(2)), insured Federal branches and any Federal branch that is uninsured that results from an acquisition described in section 5(a)(8) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3103(a)(8)).

Board: State member banks.

FDIC: Insured state nonmember banks and insured state branches.

Abstract: The CRA was enacted in 1977 and is implemented by 12 CFR parts 25, 195, 228, and 345. The CRA directs the Agencies to evaluate financial institutions' records of helping to meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income areas consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institutions. The CRA is implemented through regulations issued by the Agencies.21

21 The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 5413) transferred from the Office of Thrift Supervision all authorities (including rulemaking) relating to savings associations to the OCC and all authorities (including rulemaking) relating to savings and loan holding companies to the Board on July 21, 2011.

In 1995, the federal banking agencies issued substantially identical regulations under the CRA to reduce unnecessary compliance burden, promote consistency in CRA assessments, and encourage improved performance.22 As a result, the current reporting, recordkeeping, and disclosure requirements under the CRA regulations depend in part on a bank's size.

22See 60 FR 22156 (May 4, 1995).

Under the CRA regulations, large banks are defined as those with assets of $1.226 billion or more for the past two consecutive year-ends; all other banks are considered small or intermediate.23 The banking agencies amend the definition of a small bank and an intermediate small bank in their CRA regulations each year when the asset thresholds are adjusted for inflation pursuant to the CRA regulations, most recently in January 2017.24

23 Beginning January 18, 2017, banks and savings associations that, as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, had assets of less than $1.226 billion are small banks or small savings associations. Small banks or small savings associations with assets of at least $307 million as of December 31 of both of the prior two calendar years, and less than $1.226 billion as of December 31 of either of the prior two calendar years, are intermediate small banks or intermediate small savings associations.

24See 82 FR 5354 (Jan. 18, 2017).

Other than the information collections pursuant to the CRA, the Agencies have no information collection that supplies data regarding the community reinvestment activities.

PRA Burden Estimates OCC

Number of respondents: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register, 142; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 85, and other loan data, 25; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 189; loan data: Small business and small farm, 142, community development, 142, and HMDA out of MSA, 142; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 31; affiliate lending data, 9; request for strategic plan approval, 5; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 12; Disclosure requirement, public file, 1,234.

Estimated average hours per response: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register: 219 hours; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 326 hours, and other loan data, 25 hours; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 2 hours; loan data: Small business and small farm, 8 hours, community development, 13 hours, and HMDA out of MSA, 253 hours; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 17 hours; affiliate lending data, 38 hours; request for strategic plan approval, 275 hours; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 4 hours; Disclosure requirement, public file, 10 hours.

Estimated annual reporting hours: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register: 31,098 hours; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 27,710 hours and other loan data, 625 hours; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 378 hours; loan data: Small business and small farm, 1,136 hours, community development, 1,846 hours, and HMDA out of MSA, 35,926 hours; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 527 hours; affiliate lending data, 342 hours; request for strategic plan approval, 1,375 hours; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 48 hours; Disclosure requirement, public file, 12,340 hours.

Total annual burden: 113,351 hours.

Board

Number of respondents: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register, 94; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 21, and other loan data, 15; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 98; loan data: Small business and small farm, 94, community development, 98, and HMDA out of MSA, 89; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 9; affiliate lending data, 8; request for strategic plan approval, 2; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 1; Disclosure requirement, public file, 817.

Estimated average hours per response: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register: 219 hours; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 326 hours, and other loan data, 25 hours; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 2 hours; loan data: Small business and small farm, 8 hours, community development, 13 hours, and HMDA out of MSA, 253 hours; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 17 hours; affiliate lending data, 38 hours; request for strategic plan approval, 275 hours; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 4 hours; Disclosure requirement, public file, 10 hours.

Estimated annual reporting hours: Recordkeeping requirement, small business and small farm loan register: 20,586 hours; Optional recordkeeping requirements, consumer loan data, 6,846 hours and other loan data, 375 hours; Reporting requirements, assessment area delineation, 196 hours; loan data: Small business and small farm, 752 hours, community development, 1,274 hours, and HMDA out of MSA, 22,517 hours; Optional reporting requirements, data on lending by a consortium or third party, 153 hours; affiliate lending data, 304 hours; request for strategic plan approval, 550 hours; request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank, 4 hours; Disclosure requirement, public file, 8,170 hours.

Total annual burden: 61,727 hours.

FDIC Source and type of burden Description Estimated
  • number of
  • respondents
  • Average
  • estimated
  • time per
  • response
  • Total
  • estimated
  • annual
  • burden
  • (hours)
  • 345.25(b) Reporting Request for designation as a wholesale or limited purpose bank—Banks requesting this designation shall file a request in writing with the FDIC at least 3 months prior to the proposed effective date of the designation 1 4 4 345.27 Reporting Strategic plan—Applies to banks electing to submit strategic plans to the FDIC for approval 7 400 2,800 345.42(b)(1) Reporting Small business/small farm loan data—Large banks shall and Small banks may report annually in machine-readable form the aggregate number and amount of certain loans 393 8 3,144 345.42(b)(2) Reporting Community development loan data—Large banks shall and Small banks may report annually, in machine-readable form, the aggregate number and aggregate amount of community development loans originated or purchased 393 13 5,109 345.42(b)(3) Reporting Home mortgage loans—Large banks, if subject to reporting under part 1003 (Home Mortgage Disclosure (HMDA)), shall, and Small banks may report the location of each home mortgage loan application, origination, or purchase outside the MSA in which the bank has a home/branch office 393 253 99,429 345.42(d) Reporting Data on affiliate lending—Banks that elect to have the FDIC consider loans by an affiliate, for purposes of the lending or community development test or an approved strategic plan, shall collect, maintain and report the data that the bank would have collected, maintained, and reported pursuant to § 345.42(a), (b), and (c) had the loans been originated or purchased by the bank. For home mortgage loans, the bank shall also be prepared to identify the home mortgage loans reported under HMDA 200 38 7,600 345.42(e) Reporting Data on lending by a consortium or a third party—Banks that elect to have the FDIC consider community development loans by a consortium or a third party, for purposes of the lending or community development tests or an approved strategic plan, shall report for those loans the data that the bank would have reported under § 345.42(b)(2) had the loans been originated or purchased by the bank. 75 17 1,275 345.42(g) Reporting Assessment area data—Large banks shall and Small banks may collect and report to the FDIC a list for each assessment area showing the geographies within the area 393 2 786 Total Reporting 120,147 345.42(a) Recordkeeping Small business/small farm loan register—Large banks shall and Small banks may collect and maintain certain data in machine-readable form 393 219 86,067 345.42(c) Recordkeeping Optional consumer loan data—All banks may collect and maintain in machine-readable form certain data for consumer loans originated or purchased by a bank for consideration under the lending test 75 326 24,450 345.42(c)(2) Recordkeeping Other loan data—All banks optionally may provide other information concerning their lending performance, including additional loan distribution data 100 25 2,500 Total Recordkeeping 113,017 345.41(a) 345.43(a); (a)(1); (a)(2); (a)(3); (a)(4); (a)(5); (a)(6); (a)(7); (b)(1); (b)(2); (b)(3); (b)(4); (b)(5); (c); (d) Disclosure Content and availability of public file—All banks shall maintain a public file that contains certain required information 3,971 10 39,710 Total Disclosure 39,710 Total Estimated Annual Burden 272,874
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The OCC analyzed the final rule under the factors set forth in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532). Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the final rule includes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted for inflation). The final rule does not impose new requirements or include new mandates. Therefore, the OCC has concluded that implementation of the final rule would not result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, or the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.25 Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.

    25 The OCC anticipates that the final rule would not impose costs on any OCC-supervised financial institutions since the rule does not impose new requirements or include new mandates. Any burden that may be associated with changes made to Regulation C HMDA reporting is a result of Bureau rulemakings.

    Plain Language

    Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires the Agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. The Agencies received no comments on these matters and believe that the final rule is written plainly and clearly.

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 25

    Community development, Credit, Investments, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    12 CFR Part 195

    Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

    12 CFR Part 228

    Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    12 CFR Part 345

    Banks, Banking, Community development, Credit, Investments, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Chapter I Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency amends 12 CFR parts 25 and 195 as follows:

    PART 25—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT AND INTERSTATE DEPOSIT PRODUCTION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 36, 93a, 161, 215, 215a, 481, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 1835a, 2901 through 2908, and 3101 through 3111.

    § 25.12 [Amended]
    2. Section 25.12 is amended: a. By adding “or” at the end of paragraph (g)(3); b. By removing “; or” at the end of paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(B) and adding a period in its place; c. By removing paragraph (g)(5); d. In paragraph (h)(2)(i), by removing the phrase “unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan (as described in appendix A to part 1003 of this title)” and adding in its place the phrase “unless the loan is for a multifamily dwelling (as defined in § 1003.2(n) of this title)”; e. By removing paragraph (j)(3) and redesignating paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (j)(3) and (4); and f. In paragraph (l), by removing the phrase “`home improvement loan,' `home purchase loan,' or a `refinancing' as defined in § 1003.2 of this title” and adding in its place the phrase “closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit as these terms are defined under § 1003.2 of this title, and that is not an excluded transaction under § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) and (13) of this title”.
    § 25.22 [Amended]
    3. Section 25.22 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the phrase “home equity,”.
    § 25.42 [Amended]
    4. Section 25.42 is amended in paragraph (c)(1) introductory text by removing the phrase “home equity,”. 5. Section 25.43 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 25.43 Content and availability of public file.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Banks required to report Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. A bank required to report home mortgage loan data pursuant part 1003 of this title shall include in its public file a written notice that the institution's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (Bureau's) Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda. In addition, a bank that elected to have the OCC consider the mortgage lending of an affiliate shall include in its public file the name of the affiliate and a written notice that the affiliate's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained at the Bureau's Web site. The bank shall place the written notice(s) in the public file within three business days after receiving notification from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council of the availability of the disclosure statement(s).

    PART 195—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 6. The authority citation for part 195 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1814, 1816, 1828(c), 2901 through 2908, and 5412(b)(2)(B).

    § 195.12 [Amended]
    7. Section 195.12 is amended: a. By adding “or” at the end of paragraph (g)(3); b. By removing “; or” at the end of paragraph (g)(4)(iii)(B) and adding a period in its place; c. By removing paragraph (g)(5); d. In paragraph (h)(2)(i), by removing the phrase “unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan (as described in appendix A to part 1003 of this title)” and adding in its place the phrase “unless the loan is for a multifamily dwelling (as defined in § 1003.2(n) of this title)”; e. By removing paragraph (j)(3) and redesignating paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (j)(3) and (4); and f. In paragraph (l), by removing the phrase “`home improvement loan,' `home purchase loan,' or a `refinancing' as defined in § 1003.2 of this title” and adding in its place the phrase “closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit as these terms are defined under § 1003.2 of this title and that is not an excluded transaction under § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) and (13) of this title”.
    § 195.22 [Amended]
    8. Section 195.22 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the phrase “home equity,”.
    § 195.42 [Amended]
    9. Section 195.42 is amended in paragraph (c)(1) introductory text by removing the phrase “home equity,”. 10. Section 195.43 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 195.43 Content and availability of public file.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Savings associations required to report Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. A savings association required to report home mortgage loan data pursuant part 1003 of this title shall include in its public file a written notice that the institution's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (Bureau's) Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda. In addition, a savings association that elected to have the appropriate Federal banking agency consider the mortgage lending of an affiliate shall include in its public file the name of the affiliate and a written notice that the affiliate's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained at the Bureau's Web site. The savings association shall place the written notice(s) in the public file within three business days after receiving notification from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council of the availability of the disclosure statement(s).

    Federal Reserve System 12 CFR Chapter II Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System amends part 228 of chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 228—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT (REGULATION BB) 11. The authority citation for part 228 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 321, 325, 1828(c), 1842, 1843, 1844, and 2901 through 2908.

    § 228.12 [Amended]
    12. Section 228.12 is amended: a. By adding “or” at the end of paragraph (g)(3); b. By removing “; or” at the end of (g)(4)(iii)(B) and adding a period in its place; c. By removing paragraph (g)(5); d. In paragraph (h)(2)(i), by removing the phrase “unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan (as described in appendix A to part 1003 of this chapter)” and adding in its place the phrase “unless the loan is for a multifamily dwelling (as defined in § 1003.2(n) of this title)”; e. By removing paragraph (j)(3) and redesignating paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (j)(3) and (4); and f. In paragraph (l), by removing the phrase “`home improvement loan,' `home purchase loan,' or a `refinancing' as defined in § 1003.2 of this title” and adding in its place the phrase, “closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit as these terms are defined under § 1003.2 of this title and that is not an excluded transaction under § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) and (13) of this title”.
    § 228.22 [Amended]
    13. Section 228.22 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the phrase “home equity,”.
    § 228.42 [Amended]
    14. Section 228.42 is amended in paragraph (c)(1) introductory text by removing the phrase “home equity,”. 15. Section 228.43 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 228.43 Content and availability of public file.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Banks required to report Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. A bank required to report home mortgage loan data pursuant part 1003 of this title shall include in its public file a written notice that the institution's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (Bureau's) Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda. In addition, a bank that elected to have the Board consider the mortgage lending of an affiliate shall include in its public file the name of the affiliate and a written notice that the affiliate's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained at the Bureau's Web site. The bank shall place the written notice(s) in the public file within three business days after receiving notification from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council of the availability of the disclosure statement(s).

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 12 CFR Chapter III Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation amends part 345 of chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

    PART 345—COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT 16. The authority citation for part 345 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1814-1817, 1819-1820, 1828, 1831u and 2901-2908, 3103-3104, and 3108(a).

    § 345.12 [Amended]
    17. Section 345.12 is amended: a. By adding “or” at the end of paragraph (g)(3); b. By removing “; or” at the end of (g)(4)(iii)(B) and adding a period in its place; c. By removing paragraph (g)(5); d. In paragraph (h)(2)(i), by removing the phrase “unless it is a multifamily dwelling loan (as described in appendix A to part 1003 of this title)” and adding in its place the phrase “unless the loan is for a multifamily dwelling (as defined in § 1003.2(n) of this title)”; e. By removing paragraph (j)(3) and redesignating paragraphs (j)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (j)(3) and (5); and f. In paragraph (l), by removing the phrase “`home improvement loan,' `home purchase loan,' or a `refinancing' as defined in § 1003.2 of this title” and adding in its place the phrase “closed-end mortgage loan or an open-end line of credit as these terms are defined under § 1003.2 of this title and that is not an excluded transaction under § 1003.3(c)(1) through (10) and (13) of this title”.
    § 345.22 [Amended]
    18. Section 345.22 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing the phrase “home equity,”.
    § 345.42 [Amended]
    19. Section 345.42 is amended in paragraph (c)(1) introductory text by removing the phrase “home equity,”. 20. Section 345.43 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
    § 345.43 Content and availability of public file.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Banks required to report Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. A bank required to report home mortgage loan data pursuant part 1003 of this title shall include in its public file a written notice that the institution's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (Bureau's) Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/hmda. In addition, a bank that elected to have the FDIC consider the mortgage lending of an affiliate shall include in its public file the name of the affiliate and a written notice that the affiliate's HMDA Disclosure Statement may be obtained at the Bureau's Web site. The bank shall place the written notice(s) in the public file within three business days after receiving notification from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council of the availability of the disclosure statement(s).

    Dated: November 14, 2017. Keith A. Noreika, Acting Comptroller of the Currency. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November, 9, 2017. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board. Dated at Washington, DC, this 14th of November, 2017.

    By order of the Board of Directors.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25396 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P; 6210-01-P; 6714-01-P
    FINANCIAL STABILITY OVERSIGHT COUNCIL 12 CFR Part 1301 Freedom of Information Act Regulations AGENCY:

    Financial Stability Oversight Council.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule makes revisions to the regulations of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) as required by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective date: December 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric A. Froman, Executive Director, Financial Stability Oversight Council, U.S. Treasury Department, (202) 622-1942; Stephen T. Milligan, Attorney-Advisor, U.S. Treasury Department, (202) 622-4051.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 30, 2016, the President signed into law the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538 (2016). On November 17, 2016, the Council adopted an interim final rule implementing changes mandated by the statute.1 The Council found that good cause existed, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b), that notice and public comment on the rulemaking would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because the revisions to the Council's FOIA regulations were limited to those mandated by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and the Council was not exercising any discretion in issuing these revisions. While the interim final rule was effective immediately upon publication, the Council invited public comment on the interim final rule during a sixty-day period and stated it would consider all comments received.

    1 81 FR 85402 (Nov. 28, 2016).

    After further consideration of the rule, and in order to clarify certain provisions and reflect developments in case law, the Council is making certain changes in issuing this final rule. The final rule revises sections 1301.12(c)(2)(ii) and 1301.12(d)(2) to conform to a recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit addressing the “educational institution” fee category. See Sack v. Dept. of Defense, 823 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Specifically, the definition of “educational institution” is revised to reflect the holding in Sack that students who make FOIA requests in furtherance of their coursework or other school-sponsored activities may qualify under this requester category, and the requirement that such a requester show that the request is made under the auspices of the educational institution is replaced with a requirement that the requester show that the request is made in connection with the requester's role at the educational institution.

    In addition, the rule revises section 1301.11(b) to provide that an appeal of a denial of expedited processing must be made within ninety days of the date of the initial determination to deny expedited processing, rather than within ten days as was provided in the interim final rule, in order to conform this provision to the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. The rule also revises section 1301.12(e) to clarify that, in conformance with FOIA, the Council may charge duplication fees to educational or noncommercial scientific institution requesters or representatives of the news media unless it fails to comply with the applicable administrative time limits in the circumstances outlined in that section. Finally, the rule eliminates section 1301.12(g)(5), regarding the treatment of administrative time limits in certain circumstances because sections 1301.7(d) and 1301.12(g)(1)-(4) sufficiently address those circumstances.

    One commenter asserted that the 15 cent per page duplication fee was too high. The Council has reassessed the duplication fee and has determined, in accordance with FOIA, that 8 cents per page reflects the direct costs of duplication. The Council has revised the fee provided for in section 1301.12(b)(1)(i) accordingly.

    The Council also received a comment letter from the National Archives and Records Administration (“NARA”). NARA recommended that the Council clarify that requesters are required to be notified of the availability of dispute resolution services in the event that no records responsive to the request are located; that requirement is provided for in section 1301.8(b)(4). As requested by NARA, the Council has also added the contact information for NARA's Office of Government Information Service to the Council's Web site at https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Pages/Contact-Us.aspx.

    Procedural Matters 1. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    2. Executive Order 12866

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in section 3.f of Executive Order 12866.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1301

    Freedom of information.

    Financial Stability Oversight Council Authority and Issuance For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Financial Stability Oversight Council revises part 1301 to 12 CFR chapter XIII to read as follows: PART 1301—FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Sec. 1301.1 General. 1301.2 Information made available. 1301.3 Publication in the Federal Register. 1301.4 Public inspection. 1301.5 Requests for Council records. 1301.6 Responsibility for responding to requests for Council records. 1301.7 Timing of responses to requests for Council records. 1301.8 Responses to requests for Council records. 1301.9 Classified information. 1301.10 Requests for business information provided to the Council. 1301.11 Administrative appeals and dispute resolution. 1301.12 Fees for processing requests for Council records. Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5322; 5 U.S.C. 552.

    § 1301.1 General.

    This subpart contains the regulations of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “Council”) implementing the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended. These regulations set forth procedures for requesting access to records maintained by the Council. These regulations should be read together with the FOIA, which provides additional information about this topic.

    § 1301.2 Information made available.

    (a) General. The FOIA provides for access to records developed or maintained by a Federal agency. The provisions of the FOIA are intended to assure the right of the public to information. Generally, this section divides agency records into three major categories and provides methods by which each category of records is to be made available to the public. The three major categories of records are as follows:

    (1) Information required to be published in the Federal Register (see § 1301.3);

    (2) Information required to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format or, in the alternative, to be published and offered for sale (see § 1301.4); and

    (3) Information required to be made available to any member of the public upon specific request (see §§ 1301.5 through 1301.12).

    (b) Right of access. Subject to the exemptions and exclusions set forth in the FOIA (5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c)), and the regulations set forth in this subpart, any person shall be afforded access to records.

    (c) Exemptions. (1) The disclosure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) do not apply to certain records which are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552(b); nor do the disclosure requirements apply to certain records which are excluded under 5 U.S.C. 552(c).

    (2) The Council shall withhold records or information under the FOIA only when it reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by a FOIA exemption or when disclosure is prohibited by law. Whenever the Council determines that full disclosure of a requested record is not possible, the Council shall consider whether partial disclosure is possible and shall take reasonable steps to segregate and release nonexempt information. Nothing in this paragraph requires disclosure of information that is otherwise exempted from disclosure under 12 U.S.C. 552(b)(3).

    § 1301.3 Publication in the Federal Register.

    Subject to the application of the FOIA exemptions and exclusions (5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c)) and subject to the limitations provided in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1), the Council shall state, publish and maintain current in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public:

    (a) Descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the persons from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;

    (b) Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;

    (c) Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations;

    (d) Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the Council; and

    (e) Each amendment, revision, or repeal of matters referred to in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.

    § 1301.4 Public inspection.

    (a) In general. Subject to the application of the FOIA exemptions and exclusions (5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c)), the Council shall, in conformance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2), make available for public inspection in an electronic format, or, in the alternative, promptly publish and offer for sale:

    (1) Final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, and orders, made in the adjudication of cases;

    (2) Those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the Council but which are not published in the Federal Register;

    (3) Its administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public;

    (4) Copies of all records, regardless of form or format, that have been released previously to any person under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) and §§ 1301.5 through 1301.12, and that the Council determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records. When the Council receives three (3) or more requests for substantially the same records, then the Council shall place those requests in front of any existing processing backlog and make the released records available in the Council's public reading room and in the electronic reading room on the Council's Web site.

    (5) A general index of the records referred to in paragraph (a)(4) of this section.

    (b) Information made available online. For records required to be made available for public inspection in an electronic format pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) and paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section, the Council shall make such records available on its Web site as soon as practicable but in any case no later than one year after such records are created.

    (c) Redaction. Based upon applicable exemptions in 5 U.S.C. 552(b), the Council may redact certain information contained in any matter described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section before making such information available for inspection or publishing it. The justification for the redaction shall be explained in writing, and the extent of such redaction shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made available or published, unless including that indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) under which the redaction is made. If technically feasible, the extent of the redaction shall be indicated at the place in the record where the redaction was made.

    (d) Public reading room. The Council shall make available for public inspection in an electronic format, in a reading room or otherwise, the material described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this section. Fees for duplication shall be charged in accordance with § 1301.12. The location of the Council's reading room is the Department of the Treasury's Library. The Library is located in the Freedman's Bank Building (formerly the Treasury Annex), Room 1020, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220. For building security purposes, visitors are required to make an appointment by calling (202) 622-0990.

    (e) Indices. (1) The Council shall maintain and make available for public inspection in an electronic format current indices identifying any material described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. In addition, the Council shall promptly publish, quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of each index or supplement unless the Council determines by order published in the Federal Register that the publication would be unnecessary and impractical, in which case the Council shall nonetheless provide copies of the index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of duplication.

    (2) The Council shall make the indices referred to in paragraphs (a)(5) and (e)(1) of this section available on its Web site.

    § 1301.5 Requests for Council records.

    (a) In general. Except for records made available under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(1) and (a)(2) and subject to the application of the FOIA exemptions and exclusions (5 U.S.C. 552(b) and (c)), the Council shall promptly make its records available to any person pursuant to a request that conforms to the rules and procedures of this section.

    (b) Form and content of request. A request for records of the Council shall be made as follows:

    (1) The request for records shall be made in writing and submitted by mail or via the Internet and should state, both in the request itself and on any envelope that encloses it, that it comprises a FOIA request. A request that does not explicitly state that it is a FOIA request, but clearly indicates or implies that it is a request for records, may also be processed under the FOIA.

    (2) If a request is sent by mail, it shall be addressed and submitted as follows: FOIA Request—Financial Stability Oversight Council, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington DC 20220. If a request is made via the Internet, it shall be submitted as set forth on the Council's Web site.

    (3) In order to ensure the Council's ability to respond in a timely manner, a FOIA request must describe the records that the requester seeks in sufficient detail to enable Council personnel to locate them with a reasonable amount of effort. Whenever possible, the request must include specific information about each record sought, such as the date, title or name, author, recipient, and subject matter of the record. If known, the requester must include any file designations or descriptions for the records requested. In general, a requester is encouraged to provide more specific information about the records or types of records sought to increase the likelihood that responsive records can be located.

    (4) The request shall include the name of and contact information for the requester, including a mailing address, telephone number, and, if available, an email address at which the Council may contact the requester regarding the request.

    (5) For the purpose of determining any fees that may apply to processing a request, a requester shall indicate in the request whether the requester is a commercial user, an educational institution, non-commercial scientific institution, representative of the news media, or “other” requester, as those terms are defined in § 1301.12(c), or in the alternative, state how the records released will be used. The Council shall use this information solely for the purpose of determining the appropriate fee category that applies to the requester and shall not use this information to determine whether to disclose a record in response to the request.

    (6) If a requester seeks a waiver or reduction of fees associated with processing a request, then the request shall include a statement to that effect, pursuant to § 1301.12(f). Any request that does not seek a waiver or reduction of fees shall constitute an agreement of the requester to pay any and all fees (of up to $25) that may apply to the request, unless or until a request for waiver is sought and granted. The requester also may specify in the request an upper limit (of not less than $25) that the requester is willing to pay to process the request.

    (i) Any request for waiver or reduction of fees should be filed together with or as part of the FOIA request, or at a later time prior to the Council incurring costs to process the request.

    (ii) A waiver request submitted after the Council incurs costs will be considered in accordance with § 1301.12(f); however, the requester must agree in writing to pay the fees already incurred if the waiver is denied.

    (7) If a requester seeks expedited processing of a request, then the request must include a statement to that effect as is required by § 1301.7(c).

    (c) Request receipt; effect of request deficiencies. The Council shall deem itself to have received a request on the date that it receives a complete request containing the information required by paragraph (b) of this section. The Council need not accept a request, process a request, or be bound by any deadlines in this subpart for processing a request that fails materially to conform to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section. If the Council determines that it cannot process a request because the request is deficient, then the Council shall return it to the requester and advise the requester in what respect the request is deficient. The requester may then resubmit the request, which the Council shall treat as a new request. A determination by the Council that a request is deficient in any respect is not a denial of a request for records, and such determinations are not subject to appeal.

    (d) Processing of request containing technical deficiency. Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of this section, the Council shall not reject a request solely due to one or more technical deficiencies contained in the request. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term “technical deficiency” means an error or omission with respect to an item of information required by paragraph (b) of this section which, by itself, does not prevent that part of the request from conforming to the applicable requirement, and includes without limitation a non-material error relating to the contact information for the requester, or similar error or omission regarding the date, title or name, author, recipient, or subject matter of the record requested.

    § 1301.6 Responsibility for responding to requests for Council records.

    (a) In general. In determining which records are responsive to a request, the Council ordinarily will include only information contained in records that the Council maintains, or are in its possession and control, as of the date the Council begins its search for responsive records. If any other date is used, the Council shall inform the requester of that date.

    (b) Authority to grant or deny requests. The records officer shall be authorized to make an initial determination to grant or deny, in whole or in part, a request for a record.

    (c) Referrals. When the Council receives a request for a record or any portion of a record in its possession that originated with another agency, including but not limited to a constituent agency of the Council, it shall:

    (1) In the case of a record originated by a federal agency subject to the FOIA, refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that record to the originating agency to determine whether to disclose it; and

    (2) In the case of a record originated by a state agency, respond to the request after giving notice to the originating state agency and a reasonable opportunity to provide input or to assert any applicable privileges.

    (d) Notice of referral. Whenever the Council refers all or any part of the responsibility for responding to a request to another agency, the Council shall notify the requester of the referral and inform the requester of the name of each agency to which the request has been referred and of the part of the request that has been referred.

    § 1301.7 Timing of responses to requests for Council records.

    (a) In general. Except as set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, the Council shall respond to requests according to their order of receipt.

    (b) Multitrack processing. (1) The Council may establish tracks to process separately simple and complex requests. The Council may assign a request to the simple or complex track based on the amount of work and/or time needed to process the request. The Council shall process requests in each track according to the order of their receipt.

    (2) The Council may provide a requester in its complex track with an opportunity to limit the scope of the request to qualify for faster processing within the specified limits of the simple track(s).

    (c) Requests for expedited processing. (1) The Council shall respond to a request out of order and on an expedited basis whenever a requester demonstrates a compelling need for expedited processing in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph (c).

    (2) Form and content of a request for expedited processing. A request for expedited processing shall be made as follows:

    (i) A request for expedited processing shall be made in writing or via the Internet and submitted as part of the initial request for records. When a request for records includes a request for expedited processing, both the envelope and the request itself must be clearly marked “Expedited Processing Requested.” A request for expedited processing that is not clearly so marked, but satisfies the requirements in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (iii) of this section, may nevertheless be granted.

    (ii) A request for expedited processing shall contain a statement that demonstrates a compelling need for the requester to obtain expedited processing of the requested records. A “compelling need” may be established under the standard in either paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section by demonstrating that:

    (A) Failure to obtain the requested records on an expedited basis could reasonably be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual. The requester shall fully explain the circumstances warranting such an expected threat so that the Council may make a reasoned determination that a delay in obtaining the requested records would pose such a threat; or

    (B) With respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity. A person “primarily engaged in disseminating information” does not include individuals who are engaged only incidentally in the dissemination of information. The standard of “urgency to inform” requires that the records requested pertain to a matter of current exigency to the American general public and that delaying a response to a request for records would compromise a significant recognized interest to and throughout the American general public. The requester must adequately explain the matter or activity and why the records sought are necessary to be provided on an expedited basis.

    (iii) The requester shall certify the written statement that purports to demonstrate a compelling need for expedited processing to be true and correct to the best of the requester's knowledge and belief. The certification must be in the form prescribed by 28 U.S.C. 1746: “I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed on [date].”

    (3) Determinations of requests for expedited processing. Within ten (10) calendar days of its receipt of a request for expedited processing, the Council shall decide whether to grant the request and shall notify the requester of the determination in writing.

    (4) Effect of granting expedited processing. If the Council grants a request for expedited processing, then the Council shall give the expedited request priority over non-expedited requests and shall process the expedited request as soon as practicable. The Council may assign expedited requests to their own simple and complex processing tracks based upon the amount of work and/or time needed to process them. Within each such track, an expedited request shall be processed in the order of its receipt.

    (5) Appeals of denials of requests for expedited processing. If the Council denies a request for expedited processing, then the requester shall have the right to submit an appeal of the denial determination in accordance with § 1301.11. The Council shall communicate this appeal right as part of its written notification to the requester denying expedited processing. The requester shall clearly mark its appeal request and any envelope that encloses it with the words “Appeal for Expedited Processing.”

    (d) Time period for responding to requests for records. Ordinarily, the Council shall have twenty (20) days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) from when a request that satisfies the requirements of § 1301.5(b) is received by the Council to determine whether to grant or deny a request for records. The twenty-day time period set forth in this paragraph shall not be tolled by the Council except that the Council may:

    (1) Make one reasonable demand to the requester for clarifying information about the request and toll the twenty-day time period while it awaits the clarifying information; or

    (2) Toll the twenty-day time period while awaiting receipt of the requester's response to the Council's request for clarification regarding the assessment of fees.

    (e) Unusual circumstances—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, if the Council determines that, due to unusual circumstances, it cannot respond either to a request within the time period set forth in paragraph (d) of this section or to an appeal within the time period set forth in § 1301.11, the Council may extend the applicable time periods by informing the requester in writing of the unusual circumstances and of the date by which the Council expects to complete its processing of the request or appeal. Any extension or extensions of time shall not cumulatively total more than ten (10) days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays).

    (2) Additional time. If the Council determines that it needs additional time beyond a ten-day extension to process the request or appeal, then the Council shall notify the requester and provide the requester with an opportunity to limit the scope of the request or appeal or to arrange for an alternative time frame for processing the request or appeal or a modified request or appeal. The requester shall retain the right to define the desired scope of the request or appeal, as long as it meets the requirements contained in this part. To aid the requester, the Council shall make available its FOIA Public Liaison, who shall assist in defining the desired scope of the request, and shall notify the requester of the right to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.

    (3) As used in this paragraph (e), “unusual circumstances” means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular requests:

    (i) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request;

    (ii) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request; or

    (iii) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having a substantial interest in the determination of the request, or among two or more components or component offices having substantial subject matter interest therein.

    (4) Where the Council reasonably believes that multiple requests submitted by a requester, or by a group of requesters acting in concert, constitute a single request that would otherwise involve unusual circumstances, and the requests involve clearly related matters, they may be aggregated. Multiple requests involving unrelated matters will not be aggregated. The Council may disaggregate and treat as separate requests a single request that has multiple unrelated components. The Council shall notify the requester if a request is disaggregated.

    § 1301.8 Responses to requests for Council records.

    (a) Acknowledgement of requests. Upon receipt of a request that meets the requirements of § 1301.5(b), the Council ordinarily shall assign to the request a unique tracking number and shall send an acknowledgement letter or email to the requester that contains the following information:

    (1) A brief description of the request;

    (2) The applicable request tracking number;

    (3) The date of receipt of the request, as determined in accordance with § 1301.5(c); and

    (4) A confirmation, with respect to any fees that may apply to the request pursuant to § 1301.12, that the requester has sought a waiver or reduction in such fees, has agreed to pay any and all applicable fees, or has specified an upper limit (of not less than $25) that the requester is willing to pay in fees to process the request.

    (b) Initial determination to grant or deny a request—(1) In general. The Council records officer (as designated in § 1301.6(b)) shall make initial determinations to grant or to deny in whole or in part requests for records.

    (2) Granting of request. If the request is granted in full or in part, the Council shall provide the requester with a copy of the releasable records, and shall do so in the format specified by the requester to the extent that the records are readily producible by the Council in the requested format. The Council also shall send the requester a statement of the applicable fees, broken down by search, review and duplication fees, either at the time of the determination or shortly thereafter. The Council shall also advise the requester of the right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison.

    (3) Denial of requests. If the Council determines that the request for records should be denied in whole or in part, the Council shall notify the requester in writing. The notification shall:

    (i) State the exemptions relied on in not granting the request;

    (ii) If technically feasible, indicate the volume of information redacted (including the number of pages withheld in part and in full) and the exemptions under which the redaction is made at the place in the record where such redaction is made (unless providing such indication would harm an interest protected by the exemption relied upon to deny such material);

    (iii) Set forth the name and title or position of the responsible official;

    (iv) Advise the requester of the right to administrative appeal in accordance with § 1301.11 and specify the official or office to which such appeal shall be submitted; and

    (v) Advise the requester of the right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison or seek dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services.

    (4) No records found. If it is determined, after an adequate search for records by the responsible official or his/her delegate, that no records could be located, the Council shall so notify the requester in writing. The notification letter shall advise the requester of the right to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison, seek dispute resolution services offered by the Office of Government Information Services, and administratively appeal the Council's determination that no records could be located (i.e., to challenge the adequacy of the Council's search for responsive records) in accordance with § 1301.11. The response shall specify the official to whom the appeal shall be submitted for review.

    § 1301.9 Classified information.

    (a) Referrals of requests for classified information. Whenever a request is made for a record containing information that has been classified, or may be appropriate for classification, by another agency under Executive Order 13526 or any other executive order concerning the classification of records, the Council shall refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the agency that classified the information, should consider the information for classification, or has the primary interest in it, as appropriate. Whenever a record contains information that has been derivatively classified by the Council because it contains information classified by another agency, the Council shall refer the responsibility for responding to the request regarding that information to the agency that classified the underlying information or shall consult with that agency prior to processing the record for disclosure or withholding.

    (b) Determination of continuing need for classification of information. Requests for information classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526 require the Council to review the information to determine whether it continues to warrant classification. Information which no longer warrants classification under the Executive Order's criteria shall be declassified and made available to the requester, unless the information is otherwise exempt from disclosure.

    § 1301.10 Requests for business information provided to the Council.

    (a) In general. Business information provided to the Council by a submitter shall not be disclosed pursuant to a FOIA request except in accordance with this section.

    (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (1) Business information means information from a submitter that is trade secrets or other commercial or financial information that may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4.

    (2) Submitter means any person or entity from whom the Council obtains business information, directly or indirectly. The term includes corporations, state, local, and tribal governments, and foreign governments.

    (3) Exemption 4 means Exemption 4 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

    (c) Designation of business information. A submitter of business information shall use good-faith efforts to designate, by appropriate markings, either at the time of submission or at a reasonable time thereafter, any portions of its submission that it considers to be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4. These designations will expire ten (10) years after the date of the submission unless the submitter on his or her own initiative requests otherwise, and provides justification for, a longer designation period.

    (d) Notice to submitters. The Council shall provide a submitter with prompt written notice of receipt of a request or appeal encompassing the business information of the submitter whenever required in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. Such written notice shall either describe the exact nature of the business information requested or provide copies of the records or portions of records containing the business information. When a voluminous number of submitters must be notified, the Council may post or publish such notice in a place reasonably likely to accomplish such notification.

    (e) When notice is required. The Council shall provide a submitter with notice of receipt of a request or appeal whenever:

    (1) The information has been designated in good faith by the submitter as information considered protected from disclosure under Exemption 4; or

    (2) The Council has reason to believe that the information may be protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 because disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause substantial competitive harm to the submitter.

    (f) Opportunity to object to disclosure. (1) Through the notice described in paragraph (d) of this section, the Council shall notify the submitter in writing that the submitter shall have ten (10) days from the date of the notice (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) to provide the Council with a detailed statement of any objection to disclosure. Such statement shall specify all grounds for withholding any of the information under Exemption 4, including a statement of why the information is considered to be a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential. In the event that the submitter fails to respond to the notice within the time specified, the submitter shall be considered to have no objection to disclosure of the information. Information provided by a submitter pursuant to this paragraph (f) may itself be subject to disclosure under the FOIA.

    (2) When notice is given to a submitter under this section, the Council shall advise the requester that such notice has been given to the submitter. The requester shall be further advised that a delay in responding to the request may be considered a denial of access to records and that the requester may proceed with an administrative appeal or seek judicial review, if appropriate. However, the Council shall invite the requester to agree to an extension of time so that the Council may review the submitter's objection to disclosure.

    (g) Notice of intent to disclose. The Council shall consider carefully a submitter's objections and specific grounds for nondisclosure prior to determining whether to disclose business information responsive to the request. If the Council decides to disclose business information over the objection of a submitter, the Council shall provide the submitter with a written notice which shall include:

    (1) A statement of the reasons for which the submitter's disclosure objections were not sustained;

    (2) A description of the business information to be disclosed; and

    (3) A specified disclosure date which is not less than ten (10) days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the notice of the final decision to release the requested information has been provided to the submitter. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, notice of the final decision to release the requested information shall be forwarded to the requester at the same time.

    (h) Notice of FOIA lawsuit. Whenever a requester brings suit seeking to compel disclosure of business information covered in paragraph (c) of this section, the Council shall promptly notify the submitter.

    (i) Exception to notice requirement. The notice requirements of this section shall not apply if:

    (1) The Council determines that the information shall not be disclosed;

    (2) The information lawfully has been published or otherwise made available to the public; or

    (3) Disclosure of the information is required by statute (other than the FOIA) or by a regulation issued in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12600 (3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 235).

    § 1301.11 Administrative appeals and dispute resolution.

    (a) Grounds for administrative appeals. A requester may appeal an initial determination of the Council, including but not limited to a determination:

    (1) To deny access to records in whole or in part (as provided in § 1301.8(b)(3));

    (2) To assign a particular fee category to the requester (as provided in § 1301.12(c));

    (3) To deny a request for a reduction or waiver of fees (as provided in § 1301.12(f)(7));

    (4) That no records could be located that are responsive to the request (as provided in § 1301.8(b)(4)); or

    (5) To deny a request for expedited processing (as provided in § 1301.7(c)(5)).

    (b) Time limits for filing administrative appeals. An appeal must be submitted within ninety (90) days of the date of the initial determination or the date of the letter transmitting the last records released, whichever is later, or, in the case of an appeal of a denial of expedited processing, within ninety (90) days of the date of the initial determination to deny expedited processing (see § 1301.7).

    (c) Form and content of administrative appeals. The appeal shall—

    (1) Be made in writing or, as set forth on the Council's Web site, via the Internet;

    (2) Be clearly marked on the appeal request and any envelope that encloses it with the words “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” and addressed to Financial Stability Oversight Council, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20220;

    (3) Set forth the name of and contact information for the requester, including a mailing address, telephone number, and, if available, an email address at which the Council may contact the requester regarding the appeal;

    (4) Specify the date of the initial request and date of the letter of initial determination, and, where possible, enclose a copy of the initial request and the initial determination being appealed; and

    (5) Set forth specific grounds for the appeal.

    (d) Processing of administrative appeals. Appeals shall be stamped with the date of their receipt by the office to which addressed, and shall be processed in the approximate order of their receipt. The receipt of the appeal shall be acknowledged by the Council and the requester advised of the date the appeal was received and the expected date of response.

    (e) Determinations to grant or deny administrative appeals. The Chairperson of the Council or his/her designee is authorized to and shall decide whether to affirm or reverse the initial determination (in whole or in part), and shall notify the requester of this decision in writing within twenty (20) days (exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the date of receipt of the appeal, unless extended pursuant to § 1301.7(e).

    (1) If it is decided that the appeal is to be denied (in whole or in part) the requester shall be—

    (i) Notified in writing of the denial;

    (ii) Notified of the reasons for the denial, including the FOIA exemptions relied upon;

    (iii) Notified of the name and title or position of the official responsible for the determination on appeal;

    (iv) Provided with a statement that judicial review of the denial is available in the United States District Court for the judicial district in which the requester resides or has a principal place of business, the judicial district in which the requested records are located, or the District of Columbia in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(B); and

    (v) Provided with notification that mediation services may be available to the requester as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation through the Office of Government Information Services in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(h)(3).

    (2) If the Council grants the appeal in its entirety, the Council shall so notify the requester and promptly process the request in accordance with the decision on appeal.

    (f) Dispute resolution. Requesters may seek dispute resolution by contacting the FOIA Public Liaison or the Office of Government Information Services as set forth on the Council's Web site.

    § 1301.12 Fees for processing requests for Council records.

    (a) In general. The Council shall charge the requester for processing a request under the FOIA in the amounts and for the services set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, except if a waiver or reduction of fees is granted under paragraph (f) of this section, or if, pursuant to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the failure of the Council to comply with certain time limits precludes it from assessing certain fees. No fees shall be charged if the amount of fees incurred in processing the request is below $25.

    (b) Fees chargeable for specific services. The fees for services performed by the Council shall be imposed and collected as set forth in this paragraph (b).

    (1) Duplicating records. The Council shall charge a requester fees for the cost of copying records as follows:

    (i) $0.08 per page, up to 81/2 x 14″, made by photocopy or similar process.

    (ii) Photographs, films, and other materials—actual cost of duplication.

    (iii) Other types of duplication services not mentioned above—actual cost.

    (iv) Material provided to a private contractor for copying shall be charged to the requester at the actual cost charged by the private contractor.

    (2) Search services. The Council shall charge a requester for all time spent by its employees searching for records that are responsive to a request, including page-by-page or line-by-line identification of responsive information within records, even if no responsive records are found. The Council shall charge the requester fees for search time as follows:

    (i) Searches for other than electronic records. The Council shall charge for search time at the salary rate(s) (basic pay plus sixteen (16) percent) of the employee(s) who conduct the search. This charge shall also include transportation of employees and records at actual cost. Fees may be charged for search time even if the search does not yield any responsive records, or if records are exempt from disclosure.

    (ii) Searches for electronic records. The Council shall charge the requester for the actual direct cost of the search, including computer search time, runs, and the operator's salary. The fee for computer output shall be the actual direct cost. For a requester in the “other” category, when the cost of the search (including the operator time and the cost of operating the computer to process a request) equals the equivalent dollar amount of two hours of the salary of the person performing the search (i.e., the operator), the charge for the computer search will begin.

    (3) Review of records. The Council shall charge a requester for time spent by its employees examining responsive records to determine whether any portions of such record are withholdable from disclosure, pursuant to the FOIA exemptions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b). The Council shall also charge a requester for time spent by its employees redacting any such withholdable information from a record and preparing a record for release to the requester. The Council shall charge a requester for time spent reviewing records at the salary rate(s) (i.e., basic pay plus sixteen (16) percent) of the employees who conduct the review. Fees may be charged for review time even if records ultimately are not disclosed.

    (4) Inspection of records in the reading room. Fees for all services provided shall be charged whether or not copies are made available to the requester for inspection. However, no fee shall be charged for monitoring a requester's inspection of records.

    (5) Other services. Other services and materials requested which are not covered by this part nor required by the FOIA are chargeable at the actual cost to the Council. Charges permitted under this paragraph may include:

    (i) Certifying that records are true copies; and

    (ii) Sending records by special methods (such as by express mail, etc.).

    (c) Fees applicable to various categories of requesters—(1) Generally. The Council shall assess the fees set forth in paragraph (b) of this section in accordance with the requester fee categories set forth below.

    (2) Requester selection of fee category. A requester shall identify, in the initial FOIA request, the purpose of the request in one of the following categories:

    (i) Commercial. A commercial use request refers to a request from or on behalf of a person who seeks information for a use or purpose that furthers the commercial, trade, or profit interests of the requester or the person on whose behalf the request is made, which can include furthering those interests through litigation. The Council may determine from the use specified in the request that the requester is a commercial user.

    (ii) Educational institution. This refers to a preschool, a public or private elementary or secondary school, an institution of graduate higher education, an institution of undergraduate higher education, an institution of professional education, and an institution of vocational education, which operates a program or programs of scholarly research. This includes a request from a teacher or student at any such institution making the request in connection with his or her role at the educational institution.

    (iii) Non-commercial scientific institution. This refers to an institution that is not operated on a “commercial” basis, as that term is defined in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, and which is operated solely for the purpose of conducting scientific research, the results of which are not intended to promote any particular product or industry.

    (iv) Representative of the news media. This refers to any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience. In this paragraph (c)(2)(iv), the term “news” means information that is about current events or that would be of current interest to the public. Examples of news-media entities are television or radio stations broadcasting to the public at large and publishers of periodicals (but only if such entities qualify as disseminators of “news”) who make their products available for purchase by subscription or by free distribution to the general public. These examples are not all-inclusive. Moreover, as methods of news delivery evolve (for example, the adoption of the electronic dissemination of newspapers through telecommunications services), such alternative media shall be considered to be news media entities. A freelance journalist shall be regarded as working for a news media entity if the journalist can demonstrate a solid basis for expecting publication through that entity, whether or not the journalist is actually employed by the entity. A publication contract would present a solid basis for such an expectation; the Council may also consider the past publication record of the requester in making such a determination.

    (v) Other requester. This refers to a requester who does not fall within any of the categories described in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)-(iv) of this section.

    (d) Fees applicable to each category of requester. The Council shall apply the fees set forth in this paragraph, for each category described in paragraph (c) of this section, to requests processed by the Council under the FOIA.

    (1) Commercial use. A requester seeking records for commercial use shall be charged the full direct costs of searching for, reviewing, and duplicating the records they request as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section. Moreover, when a request is received for disclosure that is primarily in the commercial interest of the requester, the Council is not required to consider a request for a waiver or reduction of fees based upon the assertion that disclosure would be in the public interest. The Council may recover the cost of searching for and reviewing records even if there is ultimately no disclosure of records or no records are located.

    (2) Educational and non-commercial scientific uses. A requester seeking records for educational or non-commercial scientific use shall be charged only for the cost of duplicating the records they request, except that the Council shall provide the first one hundred (100) pages of duplication free of charge. To be eligible, the requester must show that the request is made in connection with the requester's role at an educational institution or is made under the auspices of a non-commercial scientific institution and that the records are not sought for a commercial use, but are sought in furtherance of scholarly (if the request is from an educational institution) or scientific (if the request is from a non-commercial scientific institution) research.

    (3) News media uses. A requester seeking records under the news media use category shall be charged only for the cost of duplicating the records they request, except that the Council shall provide the requester with the first one hundred (100) pages of duplication free of charge.

    (4) Other requests. A requester seeking records for any other use shall be charged the full direct cost of searching for and duplicating records that are responsive to the request, as set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, except that the Council shall provide the first one hundred (100) pages of duplication and the first two hours of search time free of charge. The Council may recover the cost of searching for records even if there is ultimately no disclosure of records, or no records are located.

    (e) Other circumstances when fees are not charged. (1) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the Council may not charge a requester a fee for processing a FOIA request if—:

    (i) Services were performed without charge;

    (ii) The cost of collecting a fee would be equal to or greater than the fee itself; or

    (iii) The fees were waived or reduced in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.

    (2) Notwithstanding paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the Council may not charge a requester search fees or, in the case of a requester described in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) through (iv) of this section, duplication fees if the Council fails to comply with any time limit under § 1301.7 or § 1301.11; provided that:

    (i) If unusual circumstances (as that term is defined in § 1301.7(e)) apply to the processing of the request and the Council has provided a timely notice to the requester in accordance with § 1301.7(e)(1), then a failure to comply with such time limit shall be excused for an additional ten days;

    (ii) If unusual circumstances (as that term is defined in § 1301.7(e)) apply to the processing of the request, more than 5,000 pages are necessary to respond to the request, the Council has provided a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with § 1301.7(e)(2), and the Council has discussed with the requester via written mail, electronic mail, or telephone (or made not less than three good-faith attempts to do so) how the requester could effectively limit the scope of the request in accordance with § 1301.7(e)(2), then the Council may charge a requester such fees; and

    (iii) If a court has determined that exceptional circumstances exist, then a failure to comply with such time limit shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.

    (f) Waiver or reduction of fees. (1) A requester shall be entitled to receive from the Council a waiver or reduction in the fees otherwise applicable to a FOIA request whenever the requester:

    (i) Requests such waiver or reduction of fees in writing and submits the written request to the Council together with or as part of the FOIA request, or at a later time consistent with § 1301.5(b)(7) to process the request; and

    (ii) Demonstrates that the fee reduction or waiver request is in the public interest because:

    (A) Furnishing the information is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government; and

    (B) Furnishing the information is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.

    (2) To determine whether the requester has satisfied the requirements of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) of this section, the Council shall consider:

    (i) The subject of the requested records must concern identifiable operations or activities of the federal government, with a connection that is direct and clear, not remote or attenuated;

    (ii) The disclosable portions of the requested records must be meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be “likely to contribute” to an increased public understanding of those operations or activities. The disclosure of information that already is in the public domain, in either a duplicative or a substantially identical form, would not be as likely to contribute to such understanding where nothing new would be added to the public's understanding;

    (iii) The disclosure must contribute to the understanding of a reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject, as opposed to the individual understanding of the requester. A requester's expertise in the subject area and ability and intention to effectively convey information to the public shall be considered. It shall be presumed that a representative of the news media will satisfy this consideration.

    (iv) The public's understanding of the subject in question, as compared to the level of public understanding existing prior to the disclosure, must be enhanced by the disclosure to a significant extent.

    (3) To determine whether the requester satisfies the requirement of paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, the Council shall consider:

    (i) Any commercial interest of the requester (with reference to the definition of “commercial use” in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section), or of any person on whose behalf the requester may be acting, that would be furthered by the requested disclosure. In the administrative process, a requester may provide explanatory information regarding this consideration; and

    (ii) Whether the public interest is greater in magnitude than that of any identified commercial interest in disclosure. The Council ordinarily shall presume that, if a news media requester satisfies the public interest standard, the public interest will be the interest primarily served by disclosure to that requester. Disclosure to data brokers or others who merely compile and market government information for direct economic return shall not be presumed to primarily serve the public interest.

    (4) Where only some of the records to be released satisfy the requirements for a waiver or reduction of fees, a waiver or reduction shall be granted for those records.

    (5) Determination of request to reduce or waive fees. The Council shall notify the requester in writing regarding its determinations to reduce or waive fees.

    (6) Effect of denying request to reduce or waive fees. If the Council denies a request to reduce or waive fees, then the Council shall advise the requester, in the denial notification letter, that the requester may incur fees as a result of processing the request. In the denial notification letter, the Council shall advise the requester that the Council will not proceed to process the request further unless the requester, in writing, directs the Council to do so and either agrees to pay any fees that may apply to processing the request or specifies an upper limit (of not less than $25) that the requester is willing to pay to process the request. If the Council does not receive this written direction and agreement/specification within thirty (30) days of the date of the denial notification letter, then the Council shall deem the FOIA request to be withdrawn.

    (7) Appeals of denials of requests to reduce or waive fees. If the Council denies a request to reduce or waive fees, then the requester shall have the right to submit an appeal of the denial determination in accordance with § 1301.11. The Council shall communicate this appeal right as part of its written notification to the requester denying the fee reduction or waiver request. The requester shall clearly mark its appeal request and any envelope that encloses it with the words “Appeal for Fee Reduction/Waiver.”

    (g) Notice of estimated fees; advance payments. (1) When the Council estimates the fees for processing a request will exceed the limit set by the requester, and that amount is less than $250, the Council shall notify the requester of the estimated costs, broken down by search, review and duplication fees. The requester must provide an agreement to pay the estimated costs, except that the requester may reformulate the request in an attempt to reduce the estimated fees.

    (2) If the requester fails to state a limit and the costs are estimated to exceed $250, the requester shall be notified of the estimated costs, broken down by search, review and duplication fees, and must pay such amount prior to the processing of the request, or provide satisfactory assurance of full payment if the requester has a history of prompt payment of FOIA fees. Alternatively, the requester may reformulate the request in such a way as to constitute a request for responsive records at a reduced fee.

    (3) The Council reserves the right to request advance payment after a request is processed and before records are released.

    (4) If a requester previously has failed to pay a fee within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the billing, the requester shall be required to pay the full amount owed plus any applicable interest, and to make an advance payment of the full amount of the estimated fee before the Council begins to process a new request or the pending request.

    (h) Form of payment. Payment may be made by check or money order paid to the Treasurer of the United States.

    (i) Charging interest. The Council may charge interest on any unpaid bill starting on the 31st day following the date of billing the requester. Interest charges will be assessed at the rate provided in 31 U.S.C. 3717 and will accrue from the date of the billing until payment is received by the Council. The Council will follow the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365, 96 Stat. 1749), as amended, and its administrative procedures, including the use of consumer reporting agencies, collection agencies, and offset.

    (j) Aggregating requests. If the Council reasonably determines that a requester or a group of requesters acting together is attempting to divide a request into a series of requests for the purpose of avoiding fees, the Council may aggregate those requests and charge accordingly. The Council may presume that multiple requests involving related matters submitted within a thirty (30) calendar day period have been made in order to avoid fees. The Council shall not aggregate multiple requests involving unrelated matters.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Eric A. Froman, Executive Director, Financial Stability Oversight Council.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25386 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0982; Product Identifier 2017-SW-009-AD; Amendment 39-19102; AD 2017-23-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. Helicopters AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-24-02 for Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. AD 2014-24-02 required repetitively inspecting the main rotor (M/R) rotating scissors, removing certain lower half scissor spherical bearings (bearings) from service, and installing a special nut. This new AD revises the inspection requirements and requires replacing the bearings. This AD is prompted by a new report of a dislodged bearing of an M/R rotating scissor. The actions of this AD are intended to correct an unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of December 11, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your comments electronically.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0982; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated by reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0982.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

    Discussion

    We issued AD 2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR 70785, November 28, 2014) (AD 2014-24-02), for Agusta S.p.A. Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with a M/R rotating scissors part number (P/N) 3G6230A00733 with a bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 installed. AD 2014-24-02 required repetitive inspections of the M/R rotating scissors for damage and play of the bearing and replacing the nut with a special nut, P/N 3G6230A06851, which lengthens the compliance time for repetitive inspections. AD 2014-24-02 was prompted by AD No. 2014-0215-E, dated September 24, 2014, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. EASA AD No. 2014-0215-E corrected an unsafe condition for the AgustaWestland S.p.A and AgustaWestland Philadelphia Corporation Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. EASA advised of reports of early excessive play in the bearings and a report of a chipped bearing liner.

    Actions Since AD 2014-24-02 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2014-24-02, EASA issued AD No. 2017-0028-E, dated February 15, 2017, which supersedes AD No. 2014-0215-E. EASA AD No. 2017-0028-E was prompted by a report of a dislodged bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 with special nut P/N 3G6230A06851 installed. EASA advises that all bearings P/N 3G6230V00654 could prematurely damage or wear, including those with the special nut. For these reasons, EASA AD No. 2017-0028-E partially retains the repetitive inspections and requires replacement of the bearing with improved bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 as terminating action for the inspections.

    Additionally, Agusta S.p.A. has changed its name to Leonardo Helicopters. Because the FAA is in the process of updating this name change on its FAA type certificate and it is not yet effective, this AD specifies Agusta S.p.A. as the type certificate holder.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters (previously Agusta S.p.A.) Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017. This service information specifies repetitively inspecting the M/R rotating scissors to monitor the bearings and replacing the bearing with a new part-numbered bearing.

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

    Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-39-C-62-31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation—Fixed swashplate and rotating scissors—Detailed inspection, Issue 29, dated July 31, 2017. This service information describes procedures for a detailed inspection of the fixed swashplate and rotating scissors.

    AD Requirements

    This new AD reduces the inspection interval for some M/R rotating scissors, clarifies the inspection for damage, adds an inspection for movement of the bearing out of its seat, and retains the inspection for play of the bearing. Depending on the outcome of these inspections, this AD requires replacing the bearing with an improved bearing, replacing the rotating scissor attachment flange with a certain part-numbered rotating scissor attachment flange, and replacing the nut with a certain part-numbered special nut. If not done as a result of the inspections, this AD also requires replacing each nut with a certain part-numbered special nut.

    Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires replacing each bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 within 12 months; whereas, this AD does not. We plan to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public an opportunity to comment on this long-term requirement.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 103 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Inspecting for bearing liner wear, seat movement, and play will take about 1 work-hour for a cost of $85 per helicopter and $8,755 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Replacing a bearing will take 2 work-hours and parts will cost $892 for a cost of $1,062 per bearing. Replacing a rotating scissor attachment flange will cost $20,629 for parts and no additional labor. Installing two special nuts on a helicopter will take 1 work-hour and parts will cost $682 for a cost of $767 helicopter and $79,001 for the U.S. fleet.

    According to Leonardo Helicopter's service information, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage by Leonardo Helicopter. Accordingly, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the unsafe condition can adversely affect the controllability of the helicopter and some of the required corrective actions must be accomplished within 5 hours time-in-service and thereafter every 24 hours. Other corrective actions in this AD must be accomplished within 100 hours time-in-service; however, these helicopters are generally high-usage aircraft and could reach this compliance time within a very short calendar time.

    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and

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

    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR 70785, November 28, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2017-23-08 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-19102; Docket No. FAA-2017-0982; Product Identifier 2017-SW-009-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters with main rotor (M/R) rotating scissors with a lower half scissor spherical bearing (bearing) P/N 3G6230V00654 installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as excessive play of the bearing in the M/R rotating scissors. This condition could result in failure of the M/R rotating scissors and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-24-02, Amendment 39-18035 (79 FR 70785, November 28, 2014).

    (d) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.

    (e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been accomplished prior to that time.

    (f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 5 hours time-in-service (TIS), and thereafter before the first flight of each day or at intervals not exceeding 24-clock hours, whichever occurs later:

    (i) Using a magnifying glass and a flashlight, visually inspect each bearing for wear of the bearing liner. Some examples of wear are shown in Figures 4 through 8 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017 (BT 139-392). If there is any wear of the liner, before further flight, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.

    (ii) Inspect each bearing for movement. Refer to Figure 9 of BT 139-392. If the bearing moves freely out of its seat, before further flight, replace the rotating scissor attachment flange with flange P/N 3G6220A00633, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.

    (iii) Inspect the M/R rotating scissors for play and wear of each bearing, paying particular attention to the bearing staking condition, by manually moving the lower half scissor along the axis of the spherical bearing. Refer to Figure 1 of BT 139-392. If there is any play or wear beyond allowable limits, before further flight, replace the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 and install special nut P/N 3G6230A06851. Replacing the bearing with bearing P/N 3G6230V00655 constitutes terminating action for the remaining actions of this AD for the bearing.

    (2) Within 100 hours TIS, replace and torque each lower half scissor nut with special nut P/N 3G6230A06851 to the M/R rotating scissor in accordance with the Compliance Instructions, Part II, steps 5.1 through 5.9 of BT 139-392, except you are not required to discard parts.

    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install any M/R rotating scissors with a bearing P/N 3G6230V00654 installed.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office or certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

    (h) Additional Information

    (1) Leonardo Helicopters AW139 IETP Document Code AMP-39-C-62-31-00-00A-31AC-A, Rotating control installation—Fixed swashplate and rotating scissors—Detailed inspection, Issue 29, dated July 31, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference, contains additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins. You may review a copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2017-0028-E, dated February 15, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2017-0982.

    (i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6200, M/R System.

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-392, Revision A, dated February 14, 2017.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Leonardo Helicopters service information identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Matteo Ragazzi, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-711756; fax +39-0331-229046; or at http://www.leonardocompany.com/-/bulletins.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 7, 2017. Scott A. Horn, Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-24738 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-1027; Product Identifier 2017-NM-092-AD; Amendment 39-19105; AD 2017-24-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes and Model ATR72-212A airplanes. This AD requires an inspection for routing attachments of electrical harness bundles and for wire damage, and corrective actions if necessary. This AD was prompted by reports of electrical harness bundle chafing with a window blinding panel in the fuselage due to missing routing attachments. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 11, 2017.

    We must receive comments on this AD by January 8, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1027.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1027; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0118, dated July 7, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional Model ATR42-500 airplanes and Model ATR72-212A airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An event was reported of several spurious alarms on a recently delivered ATR 72 aeroplane. During troubleshooting, damage was evidenced on the electrical harness bundle (Route 1M) due to chafing with a window blinding panel located on the left hand of the fuselage, zone 231. A bracket, necessary to maintain the harness bundle close to the structure of the fuselage and avoid chafing, was missing.

    Same bracket has also been found missing on the other side of the fuselage (symmetrical location, Right Hand side, zone 232, route 2M) with no damage on the harness bundle.

    A quality investigation revealed another aeroplane on the production line, where same brackets were not installed.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to wire failure (cut or shorted) and, in case of several failures in combination, the loss of systems, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, ATR published Service Bulletin (SB) ATR 42-92-0033 and SB ATR 72-92-1044 to provide instructions to verify the installation of the brackets and to inspect the wire bundles [for damage e.g., but not limited to, chafing and electrical shorting].

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time [detailed] inspection of the routing attachments [for missing attachments and wire damage] and, depending on findings, installation of the brackets and, as necessary, wire repair.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1027.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ATR has issued Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0033, dated May 3, 2017, for Model ATR42 airplanes; and Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1044, dated May 3, 2017, for Model ATR72 airplanes. This service information describes procedures for doing an inspection of routing attachments of electrical harness bundles and for wire damage, and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type designs.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    There are currently no domestic operators of this product. Therefore, we find good cause that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary. In addition, for the reason(s) stated above, we find that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-1027; Product Identifier 2017-NM-092-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, we provide the following cost estimates to comply with this AD. We estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $0, or $255 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing $6, for a cost of $91 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

    1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-24-01 ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional: Amendment 39-19105; Docket No. FAA-2017-1027; Product Identifier 2017-NM-092-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 11, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.

    (1) Model ATR42-500 airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 1014, 1016 through 1019 inclusive, and 1201 through 1212 inclusive.

    (2) Model ATR72-212A airplanes, S/Ns 1165 through 1200 inclusive, 1220 through 1340 inclusive, 1342 through 1353 inclusive, 1355 through 1366 inclusive, 1368 through 1376 inclusive, 1378 through 1380 inclusive, 1382, 1385, and 1388.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 92, Electrical System Installation.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of electrical harness bundle chafing with a window blinding panel in the fuselage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing routing attachments of fuselage electrical harness bundles, which could result in wire failure (cut or shorted) and, in case of several failures in combination, the loss of systems, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    Within 6 months or 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection for missing brackets and damage (including but not limited to chafing and electrical shorting) to wire bundles of the Route 1M and Route 2M electrical harness, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0033, dated May 3, 2017 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); or ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1044, dated May 3, 2017 (for Model ATR72-212A airplanes); as applicable.

    (h) Corrective Action

    If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD reveals that any bracket is missing or any wire is damaged: Before further flight, do applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0033, dated May 3, 2017 (for Model ATR42-500 airplanes); or ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1044, dated May 3, 2017 (for Model ATR72-212A airplanes); as applicable. Where ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0033, dated May 3, 2017; or ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1044, dated May 3, 2017; specifies to contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional for appropriate action: Before further flight, accomplish corrective actions in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0118, dated July 7, 2017, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-1027.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1112; fax 425-227-1149.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) ATR Service Bulletin ATR42-92-0033, dated May 3, 2017.

    (ii) ATR Service Bulletin ATR72-92-1044, dated May 3, 2017.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact ATR—GIE Avions de Transport Régional, 1, Allée Pierre Nadot, 31712 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 (0) 5 62 21 62 21; fax +33 (0) 5 62 21 67 18; email [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 8, 2017. Dionne Palermo, Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25004 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0499; Product Identifier 2016-NM-205-AD; Amendment 39-19090; AD 2017-22-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. This AD requires replacing the fastener assemblies. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective December 29, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 29, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0499.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0499; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 30, 2017 (82 FR 24595). The NPRM was prompted by reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. The NPRM proposed to require replacing the fastener assemblies. We are issuing this AD to prevent the fastener assemblies from coming loose on the crew access ladder handrails, which could result in serious or fatal injury to personnel.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this final rule. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

    Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that the NPRM be withdrawn. UPS pointed out that the crew access ladder is stowed during flight and stated that failure of the ladder does not affect safety of flight of the airplane. Therefore, UPS stated that the failure of the crew access ladder should not be the subject of an AD as it is outside the scope of 14 CFR part 39.

    We do not agree with UPS's request. Title 14 part 39.5 states: “FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we find that: (a) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and (b) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.” This action does fall within the scope of 14 CFR part 39 because an unsafe condition exists in a product that is likely to exist in other products of the same design. In addition, the ladder is accessible to, and in some cases may be used by, the flight crew during flight. Incapacitation of a flight crew member during flight is considered a safety of flight issue. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Requests To Revise Applicability To Match the Service Information

    Boeing requested that we remove the “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM. Boeing explained that this information implies that airplanes delivered with compliant rotable hardware could have the rotable hardware subsequently replaced with non-compliant hardware. Boeing stated that this is very unlikely because compliant airplanes have the compliant rotable hardware sealed within a permanent protective cover.

    UPS requested that we revise the applicability to remove Model 747-8F series airplanes, line numbers (L/Ns) 1540 and on, specified in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of the proposed AD. UPS asserted that Boeing has confirmed that those airplanes will have the compliant parts installed during production.

    We partially agree with the commenters' requests. We do not agree to remove the “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information” section of the NPRM. This section is not restated in the final rule, so no change is necessary in this regard.

    We agree that the likelihood of discrepant parts being installed on an airplane that is outside the applicability of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016, is sufficiently low. Therefore, we have revised the applicability of this AD accordingly. We also removed paragraph (h) of the proposed AD from this AD and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and

    • Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.

    We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final rule.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016. The service information describes procedures for replacing the existing fastener assemblies with new assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 84 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 $2,418 $2,673 $224,532

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-22-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19090; Docket No. FAA-2017-0499; Product Identifier 2016-NM-205-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 29, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400, 747-400F, and 747-8F series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25; Equipment/furnishings.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of failure of the fastener assemblies on the crew access ladder handrails. We are issuing this AD to prevent the fastener assemblies from coming loose on the crew access ladder handrails, which could result in serious or fatal injury to personnel.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replacement

    Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the fastener assemblies in the crew access ladder handrails with new fastener assemblies, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.

    (h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install the discrepant fastener hardware identified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016, on a crew access ladder on any airplane.

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Susan L. Monroe, Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA; phone: 425-917-6457; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.

    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (i) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 747-25-3693, dated November 10, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 19, 2017. Jeffrey E. Duven, Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-23998 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection 19 CFR Part 122 [CBP Dec. 17-18] Technical Amendment to List of User Fee Airports: Removal of Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield, CA and the Addition of Griffiss International Airport, Rome, NY; Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA; Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field, Kennesaw, GA; and Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport, Monroe, NC AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations by revising the list of user fee airports to reflect the removal of user fee status for Meadows Field Airport in Bakersfield, California and the designation of user fee status for four additional airports: Griffiss International Airport in Rome, New York; Van Nuys Airport in Van Nuys, California; Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field in Kennesaw, Georgia; and Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport in Monroe, North Carolina. User fee airports are those airports which, while not qualifying for designation as international or landing rights airports, have been approved by the Commissioner of CBP to receive, for a fee, the services of CBP officers for the processing of aircraft entering the United States, and the passengers and cargo of those aircraft.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: November 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Sullivan, Director, Alternative Funding Program, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at [email protected] or 202-344-3907.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Title 19, part 122 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) sets forth regulations relating to the entry and clearance of aircraft in international commerce and the transportation of persons and cargo by aircraft in international commerce. Generally, a civil aircraft arriving from a place outside of the United States is required to land at an airport designated as an international airport. Alternatively, the pilot of a civil aircraft may request permission to land at a specific airport and, if landing rights are granted, the civil aircraft may land at that landing rights airport.

    Section 236 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-573, 98 stat. 2948, 2994 (1984)), codified at 19 U.S.C. 58b, created an option for civil aircraft desiring to land at an airport other than an international airport or a landing rights airport. A civil aircraft arriving from a place outside of the United States may ask for permission to land at an airport designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security 1 as a user fee airport.

    1 Sections 403(1) and 411 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-296, 116 stat. 2135, 2178-79 (2002)), codified at 6 U.S.C. 203(1) and 211, transferred certain functions, including the authority to designate user fee facilities, from the U.S. Customs Service of the Department of the Treasury to the Department of Homeland Security.

    Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport may be designated as a user fee airport if the Commissioner of CBP, as delegated by the Secretary of Homeland Security, determines that the volume or value of business at the airport is insufficient to justify the availability of customs services at the airport and the governor of the state in which the airport is located approves the designation.2 As the volume or value of business anticipated at this type of airport is insufficient to justify its designation as an international or landing rights airport, the availability of customs services is not paid for out of appropriations from the general treasury of the United States. Instead, customs services are provided on a fully reimbursable basis to be paid for by the user fee airport. The fees charged must be paid by the user fee airport and must be in the amount equal to the expenses incurred by the Commissioner of CBP in providing customs services at such airport, including the salary and expenses of those employed by the Commissioner of CBP to provide the customs services. See 19 U.S.C. 58b.

    2 In addition to airports, 19 U.S.C. 58b also authorizes the designation of seaports or other facilities as user fee facilities.

    The Commissioner of CBP designates airports as user fee airports in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and pursuant to 19 CFR 122.15. If the Commissioner decides that the conditions for designation as a user fee airport are satisfied, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is executed between the Commissioner of CBP and the user fee airport sponsor. The user fee status designation may be withdrawn if either CBP or the airport authority provides 120 days written notice of termination to the other party. See 19 CFR 122.15(c)(1). In this manner, user fee airports are designated and withdrawn on a case-by-case basis.

    Section 122.15 of CBP's regulations also sets forth the list of designated user fee airports. Periodically, CBP updates the list of user fee airports at 19 CFR 122.15(b) to reflect those that are currently designated by the Commissioner of CBP.

    Recent Changes Requiring Updates to the List of User Fee Airports

    This document updates the list of user fee airports in 19 CFR 122.15(b) by adding Griffiss International Airport in Rome, New York; Van Nuys Airport in Van Nuys, California; Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field in Kennesaw, Georgia; and Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport in Monroe, North Carolina. The Commissioner of CBP has signed an MOA designating each of these four airports as a user fee airport.3

    3 The Commissioner of CBP signed an MOA designating Griffiss International Airport on March 3, 2015, an MOA designating Van Nuys Airport on April, 17, 2015, an MOA designating Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field on June 8, 2015, and an MOA designating Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport on July 28, 2014.

    Additionally, this document updates the list of user fee airports by removing Meadows Field Airport in Bakersfield, California. After an initial request by the airport authority of Meadows Field Airport to withdraw its user fee status, the airport authority and CBP agreed to terminate their MOA and the user fee status of Meadows Field Airport. On November 23, 2016, the Commissioner of CBP provided written notice to the airport authority of Meadows Field Airport that the user fee status of Meadows Field Airport was terminated.

    Inapplicability of Public Notice and Delayed Effective Date Requirements

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency is exempted from the prior public notice and comment procedures if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This final rule makes a conforming change by updating the list of user fee airports to add four airports that have already been designated by the Commissioner of CBP in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b as user fee airports and to remove one airport from the list, the designation of which has already been withdrawn by the Commissioner of CBP. Because this conforming rule has no substantive impact, is technical in nature, and does not impose additional burdens on or take away any existing rights or privileges from the public, CBP finds for good cause that the prior public notice and comments procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Orders 12866 and 13771

    Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. This amendment does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866. Additionally, because this amendment is not a significant regulatory action it is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    There is no new collection of information required in this document; therefore, the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) are inapplicable.

    Signing Authority

    This document is limited to a technical correction of CBP regulations. Accordingly, it is being signed under the authority of 19 CFR 0.1(b).

    List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 122

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Customs duties and inspection, Freight.

    Amendments to Regulations

    Part 122, of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 122) is amended as set forth below:

    PART 122—AIR COMMERCE REGULATIONS 1. The general authority citation for part 122 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1431, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a, 2071 note.

    2. Section 122.15(b) is amended by removing the entry for “Bakersfield, California” and adding entries in alphabetical order for “Kennesaw, Georgia,” “Monroe, North Carolina,” “Rome, New York,” and “Van Nuys, California” to read as follows:
    § 122.15 User fee airports.

    (b) * * *

    Location Name *    *    *    *    * Kennesaw, Georgia Cobb County Airport-McCollum Field. *    *    *    *    * Monroe, North Carolina Charlotte-Monroe Executive Airport. *    *    *    *    * Rome, New York Griffiss International Airport. *    *    *    *    * Van Nuys, California Van Nuys Airport. *    *    *    *    *
    Dated: November 20, 2017. Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25436 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1904 [Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023] RIN 1218-AD16 Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses: Delay of Compliance Date AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; delay of compliance date.

    SUMMARY:

    This action delays until December 15, 2017, the initial submission deadline for calendar year 2016 data on Form 300A under the rule entitled Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses. The original electronic submission deadline was July 1, 2017. This delay will allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which was not made available until August 1, 2017.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective on November 24, 2017. The submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data is delayed to December 15, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, Director, Office of Communications, Room N-3647, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1999; email [email protected].

    For general and technical information: Miriam Schoenbaum, OSHA, Office of Statistical Analysis, Room N-3507, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-1841; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    On May 12, 2016, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule (81 FR 29624) with an effective date of January 1, 2017, for the final rule's electronic reporting requirements. Under these requirements, certain employers were required to electronically submit 2016 Form 300A data to OSHA by July 1, 2017.

    On June 28, 2017, the Department proposed to delay the initial deadline for electronic submission of 2016 Form 300A data from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017, to provide the new administration the opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior to their implementation and allow affected entities sufficient time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system, which was not made available until August 1, 2017 (82 FR 29261).

    On August 14, 2017, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) received an alert from the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) in the Department of Homeland Security that indicated a potential compromise of user information for OSHA's Injury Tracking Application (ITA). The ITA was taken off-line as a precaution. A complete scan was conducted by the National Information Technology Center (NITC). The NITC confirmed that there was no breach of the data in the ITA and that no information in the ITA was compromised. Public access to the ITA was restored on August 25, 2017.

    In establishing the effective date of this action, the Agency invokes the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows the action to be immediately effective for “good cause” rather than subject to the requirement in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) that a minimum of 30 days is required before a rule may become effective. The nature of this action, which is to delay the submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data that could not have been complied with as of the submission date in the original rule, makes it unnecessary and impractical to delay the effectiveness of this action by 30 days.

    In this preamble, OSHA references comments in Docket No. OSHA-2013-0023, the docket for this rulemaking. References to documents in this rulemaking are given as “Ex.” followed by the document number. The docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

    II. Summary and Explanation of the Final Rule A. Comments Received on the Proposed Delay of Compliance Date

    The June 28, 2017, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposed to delay the initial submission deadline for 2016 Form 300A data to December 1, 2017. In the NPRM, OSHA also announced its intent to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate proposal. This final rule only addresses comments specific to the delay of the July 1, 2017, compliance date. In the NPRM, OSHA described its intent to provide employers a four-month window to submit their Form 300A data between the launch of the ITA on August 1 and the proposed due date of December 1. In order to remain consistent with the intent to provide a four-month window, OSHA has added two weeks to the proposed compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the time employers were unable to access the ITA in August. With the launch of the electronic reporting system on August 1, and the revised deadline of December 15, employers will still have four months (August, September, October, November, and part of December) to submit their data.

    OSHA received 72 substantive comments on its proposal to delay the submission deadline for completed 2016 Form 300A data to December 1, 2017.

    Many commenters supported the proposed delay. Several commenters commented that a delay was necessary because employers were not able to meet the July 1, 2017, deadline because OSHA's electronic data collection system was not expected to be operational until August 1, 2017 (Ex. 1842, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1868, 1874, 1876, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1894, 1902, 1908). For example, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) commented that “NFIB strongly supports a delay until at least December 1, 2017. Small and independent businesses should not be required to comply with a rule when compliance is impossible” (Ex. 1842). OSHA agrees with these comments. The data collection system was not made available to the public until August 1, 2017. Because the data collection system was not available until after the initial July 1, 2017 deadline, it was impossible for employers to comply with that provision of the regulation.

    Other commenters mentioned that a delay would give OSHA more time to assure that the data collection Web site functions smoothly when it does go live. The North American Die Casting Association (NADCA) commented that a delay would give OSHA more time to deal with potential glitches in the Web site (Ex. 1894). Joseph Xavier commented that a delay would also give OSHA more time to make sure that the Web site is easy to use (Ex. 1887). In response, OSHA notes that the Agency originally planned to launch the electronic reporting system at the end of February, which would have given employers four months (March, April, May, June) to submit their data before the original deadline of July 1. The new reporting deadline of December 15, 2017, maintains the four-month window (August, September, October, November, and part of December) for employers to submit the required data.

    Several commenters supported the proposed delay on the grounds that it would be helpful to employers for various reasons. Many commenters stated that a delay would give employers more time to familiarize themselves with the electronic reporting system (Ex. 1858, 1876, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1899, 1902, 1906). For example, the Edison Electric Institute commented that “[e]lectronic submission of OSHA 300A forms will require time for EEI members to become familiar with the electronic reporting system, determine whether any IT system or other changes will be necessary to submit OSHA 300A forms electronically, and train employees in how to use the system (Ex. 1899). As above, OSHA notes that employers will have the same amount of time between system launch date and deadline (i.e., four months) as they would originally have had under the May 2016 final rule. Other commenters mentioned that a delay would give more time for establishments to be educated about the new requirements (Ex. 1877, 1891). OSHA agrees that delaying the deadline from July 1, 2017, to December 15, 2017, gives more time for establishments to be educated about the requirements of the final rule published in May 2016.

    Many commenters also supported the proposed delay as a means to allow OSHA more time to reevaluate the May 2016 final rule (Ex. 1856, 1860, 1872, 1874, 1877, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, 1893, 1894, 1902, 1904, 1906, 1907, 1912). For example, the Precision Machined Products Association (PMPA) commented that a delay until December 1, 2017, would “allow the Administration an opportunity to review the new electronic reporting requirements prior to implementation” (Ex. 1902). Other commenters supported the proposed delay as a first step, but they more strongly supported an even longer delay. Several commenters commented that the proposed five-month delay did not provide OSHA enough time to reconsider the final rule as mentioned in the NPRM (Ex. 1842, 1886, 1898, 1904, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC) commented that “ABC is concerned that the delay will not be sufficient to allow OSHA to complete its reconsideration of the numerous challenged aspects of the rule” (Ex. 1912). This final rule delays the compliance date to submit employers' 2016 Form 300A data because it was infeasible for employers to comply with the July 1, 2017 deadline. As stated in the proposal, OSHA intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate proposal. The separate rulemaking will afford OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to substantive issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.

    Many commenters also indicated that the proposed five-month delay would be more burdensome for establishments than a longer delay. Some commenters commented that a five-month delay would create confusion among the regulated community, given that the rule could change after the proposed December 1, 2017, submission deadline or potentially be subject to even more delays in implementation (Ex. 1877, 1904, 1912, 1913). Several commenters also stated that a five-month delay could cause establishments to waste resources in an effort to comply with a regulation that could change later (Ex. 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913). For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC) commented that “[m]erely delaying the submission of these reports suggests OSHA will activate the requirement on December 1. Employers will begin preparing to submit their forms months ahead of that date. If OSHA then concludes, through the comprehensive rulemaking, to rescind this requirement, then employers will have spent their resources for no purpose” (Ex. 1911). The USCC and the Coalition for Workplace Safety (CWS) further commented that the four-month period between when the data collection Web site goes live and the proposed submission deadline is not long enough to make sure that the digital recordkeeping systems currently in use would be compatible with OSHA's Web site (Ex. 1911, 1913). The American Coating Association (ACA) raised an additional concern about enterprises with many establishments, commenting that “corporate headquarters submitting reports on behalf of establishments within its ownership would face difficulty in collecting and electronically submitting forms by the proposed December 1, 2017 deadline” (Ex. 1905).

    In response, OSHA agrees with the comment that a longer compliance delay could help to prevent further delays in implementation. OSHA has determined that the additional two-week delay to December 15, 2017 will help the Agency avoid further delays by ensuring that its electronic reporting system functions properly. OSHA disagrees that a more substantial delay is needed. OSHA notes that the collection of 2016 Form 300A is currently underway. As indicated in the May 6, 2016, final rule, OSHA will use the data collected to more efficiently focus its outreach and enforcement resources towards establishments that are experiencing high rates of occupational injuries and illnesses. OSHA intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate proposal. This final rule only delays the compliance date to submit employers' 2016 Form 300A data. In addition, employers were already required to complete, certify, and post the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by February 1, 2017, so OSHA does not expect employers to face difficulty collecting and electronically submitting the data from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by December 15, 2017.

    There were also many commenters who opposed the proposed delay of the initial submission deadline to December 1, 2017. Several commenters commented that a delay would result in a longer time before various groups (employers, employees, researchers, labor unions, etc.) could use the 2016 Form 300A injury and illness data to prevent future injuries and illnesses in the workplace (Ex. 1846, 1866, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1879, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1910). For example, Change to Win commented that the current final rule should be implemented as rapidly as possible to “aggressively reduce the nation's unacceptable burden of workplace injury, illness, disability and death” (Ex. 1871). In a related concern, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine commented that the rule should be enacted without delay because the injury and illness data could be used to help develop better health care policies and medical treatments for injured workers (Ex. 1880).

    Other commenters commented that a delay would result in a longer time before employers would have incentives to create safer workplaces through the benchmarking of injury and illness rates (Ex. 1866, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1884, 1901). For example, Public Citizen commented that it did not support the proposed delay because the data collected under the final rule would motivate employers “to compare their safety records against other firms in their industry and set goals for improvement” (Ex. 1866).

    Many commenters also opposed the proposed delay because it would result in a longer time before OSHA could use establishment-level injury and illness data to identify and target workplace hazards (Ex. 1866, 1871, 1873, 1875, 1878, 1879, 1884, 1896, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909, 1910). For example, National Nurses United indicated that they were against the delay because “OSHA Form 300A data is vital in the effective targeting of OSHA enforcement and compliance assistance resources. OSHA uses this information to develop injury and illness prevention plans and to efficiently direct OSHA's scarce resources to worksites that pose the most serious hazards for workers” (Ex. 1900). The Service Employees International Union expressed a related concern in its opposition to the delay, commenting that “workers and employers will not be able to enjoy the benefits of the regulation during the five month delay . . . [including] [i]mprovement in the quality of the information submitted to OSHA” (Ex. 1884). The Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters provided a similar comment (Ex. 1903, 1909).

    In addition to the above concerns related to occupational health and safety, other commenters indicated that the delay was not necessary for employers. Several commenters commented that there was no need for a delay given that the final rule did not impose any new recordkeeping requirements on employers (Ex. 1866, 1869, 1873, 1878, 1879, 1900, 1901, 1910). Some commenters also stated that a delay was not necessary because employers have already known about the requirements of the final rule for an ample amount of time (Ex. 1869, 1879, 1896, 1903).

    Other commenters opposed the delay by noting that OSHA has provided no rationale or justification for the delay (Ex. 1873, 1878, 1900, 1901, 1903, 1909). For example, the Utility Workers Union of America commented that “[i]n its proposal, OSHA provides no justification for the proposed delay from July to December of this year” (Ex. 1901). Other commenters also opposed the delay on the ground that the part of the final rule subject to delay is already in effect and must therefore be enforced (Ex. 1879, 1900). The National Employment Law Project further commented that such a “non-enforcement policy would be, in effect, an Administrative Stay of this part of the rule, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act” (Ex. 1879). National Nurses United provided a similar comment (Ex. 1900).

    In response to all of these comments, OSHA notes that compliance with the regulation was impossible, and OSHA must delay the initial submission deadline because the Agency did not make the electronic reporting system available before the July 1, 2017, submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay in the compliance date will cause an initial delay in the Agency's ability to use the data for inspection and outreach purposes, but only on a temporary basis during this initial collection year. The Agency will be able to use the submitted data for inspection and outreach purposes after December 15, 2017.

    B. The Final Rule

    OSHA concludes the appropriate course of action is to delay the compliance date to December 15, 2017. OSHA agrees with those commenters supporting a delay of the initial submission deadline because OSHA did not make the electronic reporting system available before the July 1, 2017, submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule. OSHA also agrees with commenters that employers will need sufficient time to learn and understand the reporting requirements and electronic reporting system, especially during the initial year of the data collection. OSHA believes the four-month period between the launch of the data collection system on August 1, and a compliance date of December 15, will provide employers sufficient time to provide the required data to OSHA. As noted above, OSHA has delayed by two weeks the proposed compliance date of December 1, 2017, to compensate for the time employers were unable to access the ITA in August. OSHA also has determined that this two-week delay will allow the Agency to avoid future delays by ensuring that the electronic reporting system functions properly.

    OSHA does not agree with commenters who called for a substantially longer delay. OSHA reiterates that it intends to issue a separate proposal to reconsider, revise, or remove other provisions of the prior final rule and to seek comment on those provisions in that separate proposal; this final rule only delays the compliance date to submit employers' 2016 Form 300A data. The separate rulemaking will afford OSHA the time necessary to give full reconsideration to substantive issues concerning the May 6, 2016, final rule.

    OSHA also notes, as above, that employers will have the same four months' worth of time with the delayed date as they would have had with the original date. In addition, OSHA notes that the original final rule was published in May 2016 and that file specifications for electronic submission have been available on the OSHA Web site since February 2017.

    Finally, OSHA notes that employers were already required to complete, certify, and post the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by February 1, 2017, so OSHA does not expect employers to have difficulty collecting and electronically submitting the data from the 2016 OSHA Form 300A by December 15, 2017. On August 1, the first day the system launched, employers created 668 accounts, registered 1,000 establishments, and completed the submission of calendar year 2016 data from 919 OSHA Form 300As. OSHA believes that the four months from the launch date of August 1, 2017, to the new delayed deadline of December 15, 2017, provide ample time for employers to submit their 2016 data and for the agency to conduct additional outreach to employers to inform them of their obligations.

    OSHA's August 1, 2017, launch of the electronic reporting system moots the comments calling for an immediate implementation of the reporting requirements because data collection began on that launch date. OSHA agrees with commenters that the delay in the compliance date will cause an initial delay in the Agency's ability to use the data for inspection and outreach purposes, but only on a temporary basis during the initial collection year. The Agency will be able to use the submitted data after December 15, 2017.

    III. Final Economic Analysis

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 require that OSHA estimate the benefits, costs, and net benefits of proposed and final regulations. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also require OSHA to estimate the costs, assess the benefits, and analyze the impacts of certain rules that the Agency promulgates. 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). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.

    In the Preliminary Economic Analysis, OSHA proposed to delay the deadline for electronic submission of Form 300A data under the regulation from July 1, 2017, to December 1, 2017.

    To calculate the private-sector cost for provisions in the current regulation impacted by the proposed delay of the first year's submission date from July 1, 2017 to December 1, 2017, OSHA subtracted costs not applicable to the proposed delay from the original private-sector cost of the final rule. The subtracted costs include the costs of familiarization and checking by unregulated establishments (both of which would have taken place after the rule was published in May 2016), the costs of the non-discrimination provision (which became enforceable in 2016), and the costs of submission of case data (the OSHA Log data) (which is not required until 2018). This yields a cost of $4,845,365 per year. This cost represents the cost of electronically submitting the required 2016 information from the OSHA Form 300A in 2017. The affected employers have already gathered and recorded this information, as required by various provisions of part 1904.

    This delay only affects costs for 2017, because the delay does not modify the deadlines for electronic submission in subsequent years. Thus, the only cost savings associated with this change are for delaying the deadline for the electronic submission of previously-recorded data by five-and-one-half months, from July 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017.

    The cost savings of the five and one half month delay are estimated based on the interest that can now be earned on the funds involved while the report for the first year is delayed.1 At a 3-percent discount rate, this results in a one-time cost savings of $65,201, or $7,644 per year annualized over 10 years. At a 7-percent discount rate, this results in a one-time cost savings of $147,950, or $21,065 per year annualized over 10 years. OSHA requested comments on these cost savings calculations but did not receive any public comments.

    1 The entire derivation is as follows: OSHA begins with a current private sector cost of the original rule of $4,845,365 times the discount rate value of the delay of (1+d⁁−((5.5)/12). OSHA then subtracts this value (which is $4,837,917 at 3 percent) from the full value of $4,845,365. This results in a difference of $7,644 in annualized costs.

    The Agency notes that it did not include an overhead labor cost in the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) for this rule, and all costs of this final rule are labor costs. OSHA did not receive any comments on the use of overhead costs in the Preliminary Economic Analysis for this delay. It is important to note that there is not one broadly accepted overhead rate and that the use of overhead to estimate the marginal costs of labor raises a number of issues that should be addressed before applying overhead costs to analyze the costs of any specific regulation. There are several approaches to look at the cost elements that fit the definition of overhead, and there are a range of overhead estimates currently used within the federal government—for example, the Environmental Protection Agency has used 17 percent,2 and government contractors have been reported to use an average of 77 percent.3 4 Some overhead costs, such as advertising and marketing, may be more closely correlated with output than with labor. Other overhead costs vary with the number of new employees. For example, rent or payroll processing costs may change little with the addition of 1 employee in a 500-employee firm, but may change substantially with the addition of 100 employees. If an employer is able to rearrange current employees' duties to implement a rule, then the marginal share of overhead costs such as rent, insurance, and major office equipment (e.g., computers, printers, copiers) would be very difficult to measure with accuracy (e.g., computer use costs associated with two hours for rule familiarization by an existing employee).

    2 Cody Rice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program,” June 10, 2002.

    3 Grant Thornton LLP, 2015 Government Contractor Survey. (https://www.grantthornton.com/~/media/content-page-files/public-sector/pdfs/surveys/2015/Gov-Contractor-Survey.ashx).

    4 For further examples of overhead cost estimates, please see the Employee Benefits Security Administration's guidance at https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/rules-and-regulations/technical-appendices/labor-cost-inputs-used-in-ebsa-opr-ria-and-pra-burden-calculations-august-2016.pdf.

    If OSHA had included an overhead rate when estimating the marginal cost of labor, without further analyzing an appropriate quantitative adjustment, and adopted for these purposes an overhead rate of 17 percent on base wages, as was done in a sensitivity analysis in the FEA in support of OSHA's 2016 final rule on Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, the base wages would increase annualized cost savings by approximately $1,299 per year using a 3-percent discount rate and by $3,581 a year using a 7-percent discount rate.

    As noted below, OSHA has stated that the data submission requirements of the original final rule would lead employers to increase workplace safety and health; although the costs of the safety- and health-improving actions have not been quantified, the savings associated with a delay of such costs would be analogous to those calculated for quantified costs.

    Table 1 summarizes the annualized and one-time cost savings.

    Table 1—Annualized and One-Time Cost Savings 5 Cost savings method Annualized
  • savings
  • One time
  • cost
  • savings
  • 3-Percent Discount Rate $7,644 $65,201 7-Percent Discount Rate 21,065 147,950

    OSHA did not quantify the benefits of the May 2016 final rule. In the economic analysis of the final rule, OSHA stated that the rule would improve OSHA's ability to identify, target, and remove safety and health hazards, thereby preventing workplace injuries, illnesses, and deaths. In addition, OSHA stated that the data submission requirements of the final rule would improve the quality of the information submitted and lead employers to increase workplace safety and health. OSHA also projected benefits associated with making the data publicly available. OSHA posits that this relatively brief delay in initial submissions will not have a meaningful effect on these benefits; however, because of the lack of quantification, there is some uncertainty as to what the impact will be. Other aspects of the final rule that OSHA determined would produce benefits, such as the non-discrimination provision and the collection of case characteristic data (OSHA Forms 300, 301) from establishments with 250 or more employees, would not be altered by this proposed action.

    5 All cost savings are in 2014 dollars. Costs are annualized over ten years.

    As categorized in Section II, above, OSHA received some comments stating there would be a loss of benefits because of the delay. The benefits from the rule will still accrue, but with a delay of, at most, 5 months. In any case, OSHA must delay the initial submission deadline, because OSHA did not make the electronic reporting system available before the July 1, 2017 submission deadline in the May 2016 final rule. Establishments are still required to report their 2016 injury summaries in 2017, and this information will be available to OSHA, just with a short delay.

    OSHA concludes that this delay of five months is both economically and technologically feasible. The delay meets both criteria of feasibility because the original rule was economically and technologically feasible without a five-month delay.

    OSHA has considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic impact on small firms. As a result of these considerations, in accordance with section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, OSHA certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, OSHA did not prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis or conduct a SBREFA Panel.

    IV. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Consistent with E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017), OSHA has estimated the annualized cost savings over 10 years for this final rule to range from $7,644 to $21,065, depending on the discount rate. Therefore, this final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated cost savings of this rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not change the information collections already approved by OMB under control number 1218-0176.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1904

    Health statistics, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 20, 2017. Loren Sweatt, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. Amendments to Standard

    For the reasons stated in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION above, OSHA amends part 1904 of chapter XVII of title 29 as follows:

    PART 1904—RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 1. The authority citation for part 1904 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    29 U.S.C. 657, 658, 660, 666, 669, 673, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012).

    Subpart E—Reporting Fatality, Injury and Illness Information to the Government 2. Revise § 1904.41(c)(1) to read as follows:
    § 1904.41 Electronic submission of injury and illness records to OSHA.

    (c) Reporting dates. (1) In 2017 and 2018, establishments required to submit under paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section must submit the required information according to the table in this paragraph (c)(1):

    Submission year Establishments submitting under paragraph (a)(1) of this section must submit the required information from this form/these forms: Establishments submitting under paragraph (a)(2) of this section must submit the required information from this form: Submission deadline 2017 300A 300A December 15, 2017. 2018 300A, 300, 301 300A July 1, 2018.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25392 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 22 [WT Docket Nos. 12-40 and 10-112; RM-11510, RM-11660; FCC 17-27] Cellular Service, Including Changes in Licensing of Unserved Area AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved, for a period of three years, the information collection requirements associated with the Commission's Second Report and Order and Report and Order, WT Docket Nos. 12-40 and 10-112, RM 11510 and 11660, FCC 17-27, including implementation of modified collection requirements on FCC Form 601, FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization. This document is consistent with the Second Report and Order and Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 22.317, 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), (c), and (f), 22.947, and 22.953(c), published at 82 FR 17570, April 12, 2017, and revised FCC Form 601, FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization, are effective on December 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information, contact Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on October 2, 2017, OMB approved revised FCC Form 601, FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization, and the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Second Report and Order and Report and Order, FCC 17-27, published at 82 FR 17570, April 12, 2017. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0508 and 3060-0798. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the requirements. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Numbers, 3060-0508 and 3060-0798, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via email at [email protected].

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the Commission is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on October 2, 2017, for the revised FCC Form 601, FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization, and the revised information collection requirements contained in the Commission's rules at 47 CFR 22.317, 22.911(a) through (c), 22.913(a), (c), and (f), 22.947, and 22.953(c). Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0508 and 3060-0798.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0508.

    OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2020.

    Title: Parts 1 and 22 Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Individuals or households, and State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15,465 respondents; 16,183 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.017-10 hours

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion, quarterly, and semi-annual reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309 and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 4,406 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $19,138,350.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information. The information to be collected will be made available for public inspection. Applicants may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be given confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) received approval for a revision of OMB Control No. 3060-0508 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The purpose of this revision was to obtain OMB approval of rules applicable to part 22 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone (“Cellular”) Service licensees and applicants, as adopted by the Commission in a Second Report and Order and Report and Order (Second Report and Order) on March 23, 2017 (WT Docket Nos. 12-40 and 10-112; RM Nos. 11510 and 11660; FCC 17-27). By the Second Report and Order, the Commission revised or eliminated certain licensing rules and modernized outdated technical rules applicable to the Cellular Service. Specifically, in addition to rule revisions that do not affect this information collection, the Commission revised the Cellular radiated power rules, giving licensees the option to comply with effective radiated power limits based on power spectral density (PSD), and giving licensees the additional option to operate at PSD limits above a specified threshold (Higher PSD Limits) so long as certain conditions are met. One of these conditions, set forth in a new provision of the Cellular rules, is a requirement for written advance notification to public safety entities within a specified radius of the cell sites to be deployed at the Higher PSD Limits. This third-party disclosure requirement is an important component of the Commission's approach to protecting public safety entities from increased potential for unacceptable interference to their communications. Also of relevance to this information collection, the Commission eliminated the requirement for filings for certain changes to cell sites in a Cellular system.

    The information collected is used to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to grant licenses authorizing construction and operation of wireless telecommunications facilities to common carriers. Further, this information is used to develop statistics about the demand for various wireless licenses and/or the licensing process itself, and occasionally for rule enforcement purposes.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0798.

    OMB Approval Date: October 2, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: October 31, 2020.

    Title: FCC Application for Radio Service Authorization: Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

    Form No.: FCC Form 601.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 253,320 respondents and 253,320 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1.25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement, third party disclosure requirement, on occasion reporting requirement and periodic reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 154(i), 155(c), 157, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 316, 319, 324, 331, 332, 333, 336, 534, 535, and 554.

    Total Annual Burden: 222,055 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $71,306,250.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes.

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 601 is a consolidated, multi-part application form that is used for market-based and site-based licensing for wireless telecommunications services, including public safety licenses, which are filed through the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS). FCC Form 601 is composed of a main form that contains administrative information and a series of schedules used for filing technical and other information. This form is used to apply for a new license, to amend or withdraw a pending application, to modify or renew an existing license, cancel a license, request a duplicate license, submit required notifications, request an extension of time to satisfy construction requirements, or request an administrative update to an existing license (such as mailing address change), request a Special Temporary Authority or Developmental License. Respondents are encouraged to submit FCC Form 601 electronically and are required to do so when submitting FCC Form 601 to apply for an authorization for which the applicant was the winning bidder in a spectrum auction.

    The data collected on FCC Form 601 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires entities filing with the Commission use an FRN.

    On November 7, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission”) released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 14-181) in WT Docket No. 12-40 to reform its rules governing the 800 MHz Cellular Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service (see 79 FR 76268). Subsequently, on March 24, 2017, the Commission released a Second Report and Order (FCC 17-27) in that same proceeding, revising certain technical and licensing rules applicable to the Cellular Service (see 82 FR 17570). In addition to rule revisions that do not affect this information collection, in the Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted revised radiated power rules, giving Cellular licensees the option to comply with effective radiated power limits based on power spectral density (PSD), and it made conforming changes to related technical provisions to accommodate PSD. The Commission retained, as an option, the existing radiated power limits (non-PSD) and related technical requirements for Cellular licensees that either cannot or choose not to use a PSD model. The Commission also revised the definition and filing requirements for permanent discontinuance of operations, consistent with transitioning the Cellular Service from a site-based regime to one that is geographic-based.

    The Commission received approval from OMB for revisions to its currently approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-0798 to permit the collection of PSD-related technical information (in lieu of certain non-PSD technical information) for Cellular Service licensees that opt to use a PSD model for their systems, pursuant to the Second Report and Order. The OMB approval under this same Control Number 3060-0798 included a revised FCC Form 601, most notably a revised Schedule F of the Form, implementing the technical rule changes adopted in the Second Report and Order and thereby allowing licensees to use the Form to make filings regarding their licenses based on PSD operations. The revisions did not have any impact on the burden to complete FCC Form 601, including Schedule F of the Form.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25413 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [CC Docket No. 02-6; FCC 17-139] Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission adopts, on an emergency basis, temporary rules to provide immediate relief to schools and libraries contending with the devastation caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, which struck the United States and its territories in August and September 2017. These temporary rules make available targeted support to schools and libraries that are forced to rebuild facilities and replace equipment damaged by the Hurricanes, and provide increased flexibility for eligible services to be restored through service substitutions. The rules also provide support for schools that have increased their total student enrollments by 5 percent or more by taking in students displaced by the Hurricanes

    DATES:

    Effective date: The rules are effective on November 24, 2017.

    Applicability date: These rules were applicable on October 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aaron Garza, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-1175 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket No. 02-6; FCC 17-139, adopted on October 26, 2017 and released on October 30, 2017. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1030/FCC-17-139A1.pdf.

    I. Introduction

    1. In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts, on an emergency basis, temporary rules to provide immediate relief to schools and libraries contending with the devastation caused by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria (Hurricanes), which struck the United States and its territories in August and September 2017. These temporary rules make available targeted support to schools and libraries that are forced to rebuild facilities and replace equipment damaged by the Hurricanes, and provide increased flexibility for eligible services to be restored through service substitutions. We also make additional E-rate support available for schools that are incurring additional costs for eligible services, e.g., for increased bandwidth demand, because they are serving students that have been displaced by the storms, even though they may not be contending with substantial physical damage caused by the Hurricanes. As explained herein, we find that the exigent circumstances faced by the schools and libraries contending with the consequences of these natural disasters constitute good cause to adopt these temporary rules without notice and comment.

    II. Discussion

    2. The temporary rules adopted in this Order provide relief to two categories of applicants: (a) Schools and libraries located in counties designated by FEMA as eligible for individual disaster assistance (Directly Impacted Areas); and (b) schools that are incurring additional costs because their student counts have increased by 5 percent or more because they are serving displaced students.

    3. For schools and libraries that are located in the Directly Impacted Areas, and that comply with the certification requirements described below, we make additional E-rate discounts available for the purchase of services and equipment that were disrupted, damaged, or destroyed by the Hurricanes by: (a) Opening a second Funding Year (FY) 2017 Application Window; and (b) resetting per-school, per-library five-year budgets for Category Two services. We also provide additional flexibility for these applicants to request service substitutions for a service or product that has been disrupted, destroyed or rendered unusable by the Hurricanes.

    4. For schools that are incurring additional costs to provide services for students displaced by the Hurricanes, and that comply with the certification requirements described below, we make additional funding available to defray some of those increased costs by permitting the schools to file a supplemental FCC Form 471 to request additional E-rate discounts.

    5. All relief granted by this Order is subject to the parameters and limitations stated herein, and conditioned on compliance with all E-rate program rules that are not specifically modified herein. To that end, we adopt additional measures to protect the Universal Service Fund from waste, fraud, and abuse. We also remind applicants that they remain subject to audits and investigations by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) and the Commission, and will be held responsible for retaining all records related to any relief provided under this Order.

    6. The Commission adopts temporary rules to assist schools and libraries that need to rebuild facilities and replace equipment destroyed by the Hurricanes, and take other steps necessary to reinstate E-rate eligible services for the students they serve. To ensure that the adopted measures reach those contending with the most severe damage caused by the Hurricanes, we limit the relief provided by these measures to schools and libraries located in the Directly Impacted Areas that certify that: (a) They are located in counties designated by FEMA as eligible for individual disaster assistance; (b) the schools or libraries incurred substantial damage to E-rate eligible services as a result of one or more of the Hurricanes; (c) any additional E-rate funding received pursuant to this Order will be used solely to restore E-rate eligible services to the level of functionality that immediately preceded the Hurricanes; (d) other resources (e.g., insurance, public assistance monies from FEMA, support from community organizations or donations) are not available to restore the E-rate eligible services to their prior functionality; and (e) additional E-rate funding requested pursuant to this Order will be returned to the Universal Service Fund if funding from other sources causes any E-rate funding disbursed to exceed the charges paid for restoring the E-rate eligible services. Schools and libraries that are located in the Directly Impacted Areas and submit the required certification are referred to herein as Directly Impacted Applicants.

    7. Section 54.504(d) of the Commission's rules allows USAC to grant a request by an applicant to substitute a service or product for another where: (a) The service or product has the same functionality; (b) the substitution does not violate any contract provision or state or local procurement laws; (c) the substitution does not result in an increase in the percentage of ineligible services or functions; and (d) the applicant certifies that the requested change is within the scope of the controlling FCC Form 470. For Directly Impacted Applicants that need to replace a service or product that has been disrupted, destroyed, or rendered unusable by the Hurricanes, we modify this rule to exclude the requirement that the substituted service or product must have the same functionality as the service or product that it is replacing. This modification will allow Directly Impacted Applicants the maximum flexibility to substitute services based on their local needs without being constrained by categories of service or service types (e.g., applicants may substitute Internet access service with internal connections and vice versa), so that they may use already approved E-rate funding to replace damaged or destroyed equipment and restore services, subject to the limitations stated herein. We believe this additional flexibility will allow schools and libraries, given their specific understanding of their circumstances, to use funding in ways that best meet their needs. The flexibility conferred by this measure effectively waives § 54.504(d)(1)(i) of the Commission's rules for Directly Impacted Applicants while keeping the remaining aspects of our service substitution rule intact. Directly Impacted Applicants must continue to ensure that a service substitution: (a) Does not violate any contract provisions; (b) does not violate state or local procurement laws; (c) does not result in an increase in the percentage of ineligible services or functions; and (d) is within the scope of an FCC Form 470. Directly Impacted Applicants must also request approval of service substitutions by submitting a service substitution request to USAC.

    8. The Hurricanes have caused widespread disruptions in service for schools and libraries in the Directly Impacted Areas, and some Directly Impacted Applicants may need to rebuild facilities and replace equipment to restore E-rate eligible services to their pre-Hurricane levels of functionality. Consistent with the E-rate program's mission to ensure that schools and libraries have access to high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning, we direct USAC to open a second FY 2017 application window to allow Directly Impacted Applicants to request additional E-rate discounts for the purchase of replacement products and services (Second FY 2017 Application Window), subject to the parameters and limitations in this Order.

    9. Second FY 2017 Application Window Dates. Given the urgent need that many Directly Impacted Applicants have for funding to rebuild and restore eligible services, the Second FY 2017 Application Window shall open 14 days after the release of this Order and will remain open for 30 days. We find that this 30-day window, opening 14 days after the release date of this Order, will provide enough time for Directly Impacted Applicants participating in the Second FY 2017 Application Window to complete any necessary competitive bidding, per the requirements below, and apply for FY 2017 funding needed to restore essential E-rate eligible services.

    10. We recognize that some Directly Impacted Applicants, particularly applicants in Puerto Rico and the USVI, may not be able to participate in the Second FY 2017 Application Window because they will still lack access to the electricity and communications networks required to do so. Directly Impacted Applicants contending with widespread destruction to property and surrounding facilities may also require additional time to assess the full extent of the damage they have incurred, and determine the resources they will need replace and restore E-rate eligible services. We recognize that the relief provided in this Order may not address the needs of all Directly Impacted Applicants, and assure them that the Second FY 2017 Application Window does not mark the end of our efforts. We direct the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) to work with USAC in the coming months to formulate a plan for providing additional relief to Directly Impacted Applicants who are unable to participate in the Second FY 2017 Application Window, and may not be able to replace and restore E-rate eligible services through the additional measures adopted in this Order and the ordinary application process for FY 2018. When considering the form and timing of these additional measures, we direct the Bureau to take into consideration factors such as when the Directly Impacted Applicants regained access to electricity and other resources necessary to make effective use of E-rate eligible services, and how the additional measures will function within the overall administration of the program.

    11. Competitive Bidding. Competitive bidding is a cornerstone of the E-rate program. Our competitive bidding rules ensure that applicants are informed of all the options available to them whenever they seek a new service contract, ensure that service providers have sufficient information to submit a responsive proposal, generate the most efficient pricing for eligible services, and guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. To ensure the most efficient use of the additional funds made available for the Second FY 2017 Application Window, and as a safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse, we retain our competitive bidding rules for the Second FY 2017 Application Window with two limited modifications.

    12. First, a Directly Impacted Applicant may submit an FCC Form 471 during the Second FY 2017 Application Window requesting E-rate discounts without initiating a new competitive bidding process for the requested services or equipment if the Directly Impacted Applicant: (a) Has already sought bids for the services or equipment by posting an FCC Form 470; (b) received a Funding Commitment Decision Letter (FCDL) from USAC approving an FY 2017 funding request that relied on that FCC Form 470, or has such an FY 2017 funding request pending; and (c) requests additional E-rate discounts during the Second FY 2017 Application Window to purchase the same services or equipment on substantially similar terms and conditions as the contract originated by the existing FCC Form 470. This modification is intended to expedite the restoration of services or the replacement of equipment that were already purchased by, and delivered to, Directly Impacted Applicants for FY 2017, but destroyed or otherwise affected by the Hurricanes. Directly Impacted Applicants that wish to avail themselves of this option must submit the following information in the Narrative Section of the relevant FCC Form 471 funding request: (a) The identification numbers for the FY 2017 FCC Form 471 and funding request that previously relied on the FCC Form 470; (b) a statement confirming that the services or equipment for which the applicant previously requested E-rate discounts in FY 2017 were delivered prior to the Hurricanes, and subsequently disrupted, destroyed, or damaged by the Hurricanes; and (c) a statement confirming that the requested additional E-rate discounts are to replace those services or equipment by the pertinent service implementation deadline.

    13. Second, for all other funding requests submitted during the Second FY 2017 Application Window, we modify the requirement that applicants wait to enter a contract with a service provider until 28 days have passed after posting an FCC Form 470. Specifically, we will require Directly Impacted Applicants that wish to seek additional E-rate discounts during the Second FY 2017 Application Window to wait only 14 days prior to selecting a service provider and filing an FCC Form 471 requesting E-rate support. We find that reducing the mandatory waiting period balances the need for quick and decisive action to restore E-rate eligible services to schools and libraries with our obligations to ensure the most efficient use of universal service funds and protect the program against waste, fraud, and abuse.

    14. Discount Rate. Under the Commission's rules, eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts ranging from 20 percent to 90 percent of the pre-discount price of eligible Category One (C1) services and between 20 percent and 85 percent of the pre-discount price of eligible Category Two (C2) services, based on indicators of poverty, as well as rural or urban status. For the Second FY 2017 Application Window only, we increase the discount rate for all Directly Impacted Applicants to the maximum discount rate for both C1 and C2 services, excluding voice services. All Directly Impacted Applicants will, therefore, receive a 90 percent discount for C1 services, other than voices services, and an 85 percent discount for C2 services for these requests. We conclude that increasing the discount rate for Directly Impacted Applicants will provide needed funding to immediately assist such applicants with restoring E-rate eligible services.

    15. E-rate applicants may request support for C2 services pursuant to our rules that establish a pre-discount budget of $150 per student over five years for schools, and a pre-discount budget of $2.30 or $5.00 per square foot for libraries depending on their location. It is up to each school and library to determine how to allocate funds from their C2 budgets over a five-year period. Five-year C2 budgets were first instituted in FY 2015. It is therefore possible that some schools and libraries had already expended all or most of their C2 budgets by the time the Hurricanes hit in August and September 2017. Accordingly, some Directly Impacted Applicants may have little to no funds remaining in their school and library budgets to replace internal connections destroyed by the Hurricanes.

    16. The Commission has recognized the importance of ensuring that sufficient funding is available for school and library internal connections, such as wireless access points, to ensure that high-speed broadband connectivity is effectively distributed to classrooms. Accordingly, we reset the five-year C2 budgets for all Directly Impacted Applicants. For those Directly Impacted Applicants that request additional E-rate discounts for C2 services during the Second FY 2017 Application Window, those requests will start the five-year clock on their budgets. For all other Directly Impacted Applicants, the five-year clock will begin in the first year that they request E-rate discounts for C2 services after the effective date of this Order.

    17. Some schools that are located in Directly Impacted Areas but did not incur substantial damage, or that are located outside of the Directly Impacted Areas, may be incurring additional costs due to an influx of displaced students (Indirectly Impacted Schools). The influx of additional students may increase the resource needs of the school, may increase a school's National School Lunch Program (NSLP) rate, or may affect a school's C2 budget. To assist these Indirectly Impacted Schools, and support the educational needs of students displaced by the Hurricanes, we will allow schools that certify that their student count has increased by 5 percent or more due to an influx of displaced students to submit a supplementary FCC Form 471 during the Second FY 2017 Application Window to request additional funding. Indirectly Impacted Schools requesting this additional funding must certify: (a) That their student count for FY 2017 has increased by 5 percent or more because of students displaced by the Hurricanes; (b) the number of students they served during the original FY 2017 Application Window, the number of additional students they are serving as-of the Second FY 2017 Application Window, and their total student population as-of the Second FY 2017 Application Window; (c) that they experienced an associated increase in demand for services for which they have submitted an FY 2017 funding request; (d) that the additional funding requested is necessary to serve these additional, unanticipated needs; and (e) that funding is not available from another source (e.g., insurance, public assistance monies from FEMA, support from community organizations or donations) to cover the increased costs. We also require schools to maintain documentation in support of this increased number in accordance with our recordkeeping requirements.

    18. Indirectly Impacted Schools requesting additional funds pursuant to this Order may avail themselves of the competitive bidding modifications established for the Second FY 2017 Application Window. We will carefully monitor the use of funds disbursed to ensure that all support is utilized in accordance with Commission rules and to ensure that service providers do not charge unjust or unreasonable rates. We reserve the right to recover any monies that are not used for their intended purposes or, upon review, that we determine were used wastefully.

    19. We are committed to guarding against waste, fraud, and abuse. Although we establish the limited, temporary rules described herein, we adopt steps to ensure program integrity, including enhanced audit procedures. Except where noted herein, we apply all existing processes and procedures for applying for and receiving E-rate discounts. We will require USAC to recover funds that we discover were not used properly through its normal processes. We also direct USAC to incorporate into its processes appropriate safeguards and audit measures to prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse related to the particular provisions we adopt here. We emphasize that we retain the discretion to evaluate the use of monies disbursed through the E-rate program and to determine on a case-by-case basis that waste, fraud, or abuse of program funds occurred and that recovery is warranted. We remain committed to ensuring the integrity of the program and will continue to aggressively pursue instances of waste, fraud, or abuse under our own procedures and in cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

    20. Sunset of Temporary Rules. We will reevaluate the temporary rule changes adopted herein before the opening of the FY 2018 filing window. Absent further action by the Commission, the temporary rule changes adopted herein will not apply to future funding years, including FY 2018, except insofar as this order resets five-year C2 budgets for Directly Impacted Applicants. We believe that reevaluating the sufficiency and efficacy of these temporary rules is a necessary safeguard against waste, fraud, and abuse going forward.

    21. Record Retention. We require any school, library, or consortium using the temporary rules adopted herein to maintain documentation in support of its filing in accordance with our recordkeeping requirements. Applicants and service providers relying on these temporary rules are responsible for maintaining records that demonstrate their need and eligibility to rely on the temporary rules, including records supporting their certification that they received substantial damage as a result of the Hurricanes.

    22. Audits. All beneficiaries and service providers receiving E-rate money are subject to potential audit, and those that receive more than $500,000 will automatically be audited by USAC to ensure the funds are used for their intended purposes. All eligible telecommunications carriers, service providers, or beneficiaries requesting support under these temporary rules shall be subject to audit or investigation by the Commission's Office of Inspector General or other authorized federal or state governmental agency and, upon request, must make available any documentation and records necessary to verify compliance with these rules.

    23. Necessary Resources. We retain the requirement that applicants certify that they have secured access to all of the resources necessary to make effective use of the services purchased. Applicants eligible to request relief pursuant to this Order are cautioned that they may not request E-rate support for eligible services that they cannot actually use by the pertinent service implementation deadline because they do not have the required facilities, power, or other resources necessary to make effective use of the services.

    24. Prohibition on Free Services. We retain the requirement that all applicants pay their entire non-discounted portion of the cost of any services or products received through E-rate. Our rules prohibit the provision of free services to an eligible entity by a service provider that is also providing discounted services to the entity. Moreover, our rules state that the provision of free services or products unrelated to the supported service or product constitutes a rebate of the non-discount portion of the supported services.

    25. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act permits an agency to implement rules without public notice and opportunity for comment “when the agency for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Commission's rules additionally permit us to render an order effective upon release where good cause warrants. The Hurricanes have caused extensive damage in areas of Texas, Florida, and Georgia, and throughout Puerto Rico and the USVI, creating an urgent and immediate need for the relief provided by this Order. While we believe that public notice requirements are an essential part of our rulemaking process, the need for prompt attention to the victims and quick restoration of services presents good cause to forgo notice and comment on these limited, temporary rules and to make this Order effective immediately upon release. The temporary rules that we adopt herein constitute an important step in the Nation's response to these natural disasters, as well as the ability of the E-rate program to fulfill its purpose of ensuring that schools and libraries have affordable access to the high-speed broadband necessary for students to succeed in their educational pursuits and beyond. Further, this Order does not mandate new burdens or obligations. Accordingly, no entity will be adversely affected by making the Order effective upon its release. We find, therefore, that good cause exists to forgo notice and comment on these rules and make the temporary rules adopted by this Order effective immediately upon the release date of this Order. We delegate authority to the Bureau to work with USAC to make the necessary programmatic changes to implement this Order.

    26. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    27. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). For the reasons stated herein, we find good cause for the rule changes made by this Order to take effect upon the release of this Order, see 5 U.S.C. 808(2).

    III. Ordering Clauses

    28. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, 201-205, 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 this Order is adopted, and the temporary rules shall become effective immediately upon release of this Order, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 408, 553(d)(3); 47 CFR 1.103(a), 1.427(b).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25406 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 [MB Docket No. 07-294, MD Docket No. 10-234; FCC 16-1] Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on April 4, 2016. That document revised FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations, and amended Sections 73.3615 and 74.797 of the Commission's rules. This document corrects the final regulations by replacing references to “FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323” with “FCC Form 323” and replacing references to “FCC Form 2100, Schedule 323-E” with “FCC Form 323-E.”

    DATES:

    Effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Clark, Industry Analysis Division, Media Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-2609. For additional information concerning the information collection requirements contained in the Report and Order, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In FR Doc. 2016-04838 appearing on page 19431 in the Federal Register on Monday, April 4, 2016, the following corrections are made:

    § 73.3615 [Corrected]
    1. Beginning on page 19459, in the third column, in § 73.3615, paragraphs (a) through (f) are corrected to read as follows:

    “(a) The Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 323) must be filed electronically every two years by each licensee of a commercial AM, FM, or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the licensee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”). The ownership report shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323 (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. The information provided on each ownership report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. A Respondent with a current and unamended biennial ownership report (i.e., an ownership report that was filed pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that is still accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 323 that is current on October 1 of the year in which its biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report.

    (b)(1) Each permittee of a commercial AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”) shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323 within 30 days of the date of grant by the FCC of an application by the permittee for original construction permit. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323 (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed.

    (2) Except as specifically noted below, each permittee of a commercial AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”) shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323 on the date that the permittee applies for a station license. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323 (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed. If a Respondent has a current and unamended ownership report on file with the Commission that was filed pursuant to paragraphs (b)(1) or (c) of this section, was submitted using the version of FCC Form 323 that is current on the date on which the ownership report due pursuant to paragraph(b)(2) is filed, and is still accurate, the Respondent may certify that it has reviewed such ownership report and that it is accurate, in lieu of filing a new ownership report.

    (c) Each permittee or licensee of a commercial AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee or licensee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”), shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323 within 30 days of consummating authorized assignments or transfers of permits and licenses. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323 (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed.

    (d) The Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 323-E) must be filed electronically every two years by each licensee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the licensee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”). The ownership report shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323-E (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. The information provided on each ownership report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. A Respondent with a current and unamended biennial ownership report (i.e., an ownership report that was filed pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that is still accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 323-E that is current on October 1 of the year in which its biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report.

    (e)(1) Each permittee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”) shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323-E within 30 days of the date of grant by the FCC of an application by the permittee for original construction permit. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323-E (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed.

    (2) Except as specifically noted below, each permittee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast station and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”) shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323-E on the date that the permittee applies for a station license. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323-E (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed. If a Respondent has a current and unamended ownership report on file with the Commission that was filed pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1) or (f) of this section, was submitted using the version of FCC Form 323-E that is current on the date on which the ownership report due pursuant to this subsection is filed, and is still accurate, the Respondent may certify that it has reviewed such ownership report and that it is accurate, in lieu of filing a new ownership report.

    (f) Each permittee or licensee of a noncommercial educational AM, FM or TV broadcast station, and any entity that holds an interest in the permittee or licensee that is attributable pursuant to § 73.3555 (each a “Respondent”), shall file an ownership report on FCC Form 323-E within 30 days of consummating authorized assignments or transfers of permits and licenses. Each ownership report shall provide all information required by, and comply with all requirements set forth in, the version of FCC Form 323-E (including all instructions for the form and schedule) that is current on the date on which the ownership report is filed.”

    § 74.797 [Corrected]
    2. Beginning on page 19460, in the third column, § 74.797 is corrected to read as follows:

    “The Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations (FCC Form 323) must be electronically filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years by each licensee of a low power television station or other Respondent (as defined in § 73.3615(a) of this chapter). A licensee or other Respondent with a current and unamended biennial ownership report (i.e., a report that was filed pursuant to this subsection) on file with the Commission that is still accurate and which was filed using the version of FCC Form 323 that is current on October 1 of the year in which its biennial ownership report is due may electronically validate and resubmit its previously filed biennial ownership report. The information provided on each ownership report shall be current as of October 1 of the year in which the ownership report is filed. For information on filing requirements, filers should refer to § 73.3615(a) of this chapter.”

    Federal Communications Commission Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25443 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 [MB Docket No. 07-294, MD Docket No. 10-234, FCC 16-1] Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved, for a period of three years, amendments to the Commission's rules and revised filing procedures and changes to FCC Form 323 (Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations) and FCC Form 323-E (Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations), which the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, Promoting Diversification of Ownership in the Broadcasting Services, FCC 16-1. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the rule amendments and revised filing procedures and changes to Forms 323 and 323-E.

    DATES:

    Amendments to 47 CFR 73.3615 and 74.797 and changes to FCC Forms 323 and 323-E, published at 81 FR 19431, April 4, 2016, are effective November 28, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on November 25, 2016, OMB approved, for a period of three years, amendments to sections 73.3615 and 74.797 of the Commission's rules and revised filing procedures and changes to FCC Form 323 (Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations) and FCC Form 323-E (Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations), which the Commission adopted in the Report and Order, FCC 16-1, published at 81 FR 19432, April 4, 2016. The OMB Control Numbers are 3060-0010 and 3060-0084. The Commission publishes this document as an announcement of the effective date of the amendments to sections 73.3615 and 74.797 of the Commission's rules and the revised filing procedures and changes to Forms 323 and 323-E. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collection and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20556. Please include the OMB Control Numbers 3060-0010 and 3060-0084 in your correspondence.

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval, on November 25, 2016, of amendments to sections 73.3615 and 74.797 of the Commission's rules and revised filing procedures and changes to FCC Form 323 (Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations) and FCC Form 323-E (Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations).

    Under 5 CFR part 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number.

    No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for Forms 323 and 323-E are 3060-0010 and 3060-0084, respectively.

    The foregoing notice is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0010.

    OMB Approval Date: November 25, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2019.

    Title: Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, FCC Form 323; Section 73.3615, Ownership Reports; Section 74.797, Biennial Ownership Reports.

    Form Number: FCC Form 323.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,340 respondents; 4,340 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.5 to 2.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; biennial reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 309, and 310.

    Total Annual Burden: 9,620 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $10,093,220.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: FCC Form 323 collects two types of information from respondents: PII in the form of names, addresses, job titles and demographic information; and FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs).

    The FCC/MB-1 SORN, which was approved on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 72047), covers the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 323, as required under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Commission is drafting a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the Commission has in place to protect the PII.

    FRNs are assigned to applicants who complete FCC Form 160 (OMB Control No. 3060-0917). Form 160 currently requires applicants for FRNs to provide their Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) and/or Social Security Number (SSN). The FCC's electronic Commission Registration System (CORES) then provides each registrant with a CORES FRN, which identifies the registrant in his/her subsequent dealings with the FCC. This is done to protect the individual's privacy. Form 160 requires applicants for Restricted Use FRNs to provide an alternative set of identifying information that does not include the individual's full SSN: His/her full name, residential address, date of birth, and only the last four digits of his/her SSN. Restricted Use FRNs may be used in lieu of CORES FRNs only on broadcast ownership reports and only for individuals (not entities) reported as attributable interest holders. The Commission maintains a SORN, FCC/OMD-25, Financial Operations Information System (FOIS), to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 160. Form 160 includes a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.

    Privacy Act: The Commission is drafting a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the personally identifiable information (PII) that is covered by the system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-1, Ownership Reports for Commercial and Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Upon completion of the PIA, it will be posted on the FCC's Web site, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum, M-03-22 (September 22, 2003).

    Needs and Uses: On January 20, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 10-103, and MD Docket No. 10-234 (323 and 323-E Order). The 323 and 323-E Order refines the collection of data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Specifically, the 323 and 323-E Order implements a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's Registration System (CORES) that individuals may use solely for the purpose of broadcast ownership report filings; eliminates the availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for broadcast station ownership reports, except in very limited circumstances; prescribes revisions to Form 323-E that conform the reporting requirements for noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to those for commercial stations; and makes a number of significant changes to the Commission's reporting requirements that reduce the filing burdens on broadcasters, streamline the process, and improve data quality. These enhancements will enable the Commission to obtain data reflecting a more useful, accurate, and thorough assessment of minority and female broadcast station ownership in the United States while reducing certain filing burdens.

    Licensees of commercial AM, FM, and full power television broadcast stations, as well as licensees of Class A and Low Power Television stations, must file FCC Form 323 every two years. Form 323 shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. On September 1, 2017, the Commission's Media Bureau released an Order in MB Docket No. 07-294, DA 17-813, postponing the opening of the 2017 biennial filing window for the submission of broadcast ownership reports on FCC Forms 323 and 323-E and extending the 2017 filing deadline.

    Biennial Ownership Reports shall provide information accurate as of October 1 of the year in which the Report is filed.

    In addition, Licensees and Permittees of commercial AM, FM, and full power television stations must file Form 323 following the consummation of a transfer of control or an assignment of a commercial AM, FM, or full power television station license or construction permit; a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM, or full power television station must file Form 323 within 30 days after the grant of the construction permit; and a Permittee of a new commercial AM, FM, or full power television broadcast station must file Form 323 to update the initial report or to certify the continuing accuracy and completeness of the previously filed report on the date that the Permittee applies for a license to cover the construction permit.

    In the case of organizational structures that include holding companies or other forms of indirect ownership, a separate Form 323 must be filed for each entity in the organizational structure that has an attributable interest in the Licensee or Permittee.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0084.

    OMB Approval Date: November 25, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2019.

    Title: Ownership Report for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations, FCC Form 323-E; Section 73.3615, Ownership Reports.

    Form Number: FCC Form 323-E.

    Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,636 respondents; 2,636 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 1.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; biennial reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, and 310.

    Total Annual Burden: 3,867 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $2,319,900.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: FCC Form 323-E collects two types of information from respondents: PII in the form of names, addresses, job titles and demographic information; and FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs).

    The FCC/MB-1 SORN, which was approved on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 72047), covers the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 323-E, as required under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Commission is drafting a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the Commission has in place to protect the PII.

    FRNs are assigned to applicants who complete FCC Form 160 (OMB Control No. 3060-0917). Form 160 currently requires applicants for FRNs to provide their Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) and/or Social Security Number (SSN). The FCC's electronic Commission Registration System (CORES) then provides each registrant with a CORES FRN, which identifies the registrant in his/her subsequent dealings with the FCC. This is done to protect the individual's privacy. Form 160 requires applicants for Restricted Use FRNs to provide an alternative set of identifying information that does not include the individual's full SSN: His/her full name, residential address, date of birth, and only the last four digits of his/her SSN. Restricted Use FRNs may be used in lieu of CORES FRNs only on broadcast ownership reports and only for individuals (not entities) reported as attributable interest holders. The Commission maintains a SORN, FCC/OMD-25, Financial Operations Information System (FOIS), to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 160. Form 160 includes a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.

    Privacy Act: The Commission is drafting a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the personally identifiable information (PII) that is covered by the system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-1, Ownership Reports for Commercial and Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Upon completion of the PIA, it will be posted on the FCC's Web site, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum, M-03-22 (September 22, 2003).

    Needs and Uses: On January 20, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 10-103, and MD Docket No. 10-234 (323 and 323-E Order). The 323 and 323-E Order refines the collection of data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC Form 323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Specifically, the 323 and 323-E Order implements a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's Registration System (CORES) that individuals may use solely for the purpose of broadcast ownership report filings; eliminates the availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for broadcast station ownership reports, except in very limited circumstances; prescribes revisions to Form 323-E that conform the reporting requirements for noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to those for commercial stations; and makes a number of significant changes to the Commission's reporting requirements that reduce the filing burdens on broadcasters, streamline the process, and improve data quality. These enhancements will enable the Commission to obtain data reflecting a more useful, accurate, and thorough assessment of minority and female broadcast station ownership in the United States while reducing certain filing burdens.

    On April 21, 2017, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 07-294 and MD Docket No. 10-23 (323-E Reconsideration Order). The 323-E Reconsideration Order expands the option to use SUFRNs on Form 323-E. This action addresses several petitions for reconsideration of the 323 and 323-E Order and properly balances the Commission's need to improve the integrity and usability of its broadcast ownership data with the concerns raised in the petitions for reconsideration.

    Licensees of noncommercial educational AM, FM, and television broadcast stations must file FCC Form 323-E every two years. Pursuant to the new filing procedures adopted in the 323 and 323-E Order, Form 323-E shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. On September 1, 2017, the Commission's Media Bureau released an Order in MB Docket No. 07-294, DA 17-813, postponing the opening of the 2017 biennial filing window for the submission of broadcast ownership reports on FCC Forms 323 and 323-E and extending the 2017 filing deadline. Biennial Ownership Reports shall provide information accurate as of October 1 of the year in which the Report is filed.

    In addition, Licensees and Permittees of noncommercial educational AM, FM, and television stations must file Form 323-E following the consummation of a transfer of control or an assignment of a noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station license or construction permit; a Permittee of a new noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station must file Form 323-E within 30 days after the grant of the construction permit; and a Permittee of a new noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station must file Form 323-E to update the initial report or to certify the continuing accuracy and completeness of the previously filed report on the date that the Permittee applies for a license to cover the construction permit.

    In the case of organizational structures that include holding companies or other forms of indirect ownership, a separate Form 323-E must be filed for each entity in the organizational structure that has an attributable interest in the Licensee or Permittee.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25408 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 150902809-7999-02] RIN 0648-BF12 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Widow Rockfish Reallocation in the Individual Fishing Quota Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this final rule, NMFS announces approval of a regulatory amendment to the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to reallocate quota shares (QS) of widow rockfish in the Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. In January 2011, NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization program, which includes an IFQ Program for limited entry (LE) trawl participants. At the time of implementation, the widow rockfish stock was overfished and QS were allocated to QS permit holders in the Shorebased IFQ Program (the Program) only to cover widow rockfish bycatch that may be associated with harvest of target species. Now that widow rockfish has been rebuilt, this action reallocates QS to initial recipients to reestablish a target widow rockfish fishery. The reallocation is based on a target species formula that more closely represents the fishing history of permit holders when widow rockfish was a targeted species. This final rule also removes the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish, allows the trading of widow rockfish QS, and sets a deadline for divestiture of excess QS should the reallocation of widow rockfish cause any QS permit holder to exceed an accumulation limit.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective December 26, 2017, except for the amendment to § 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(A)(4), which will be effective from December 26, 2017 through December 31, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    NMFS prepared an environmental assessment (EA), a Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), which is included in the Classification section of this final rule. NMFS also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule. Copies of the EA, RIR, IRFA, FRFA and the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available from Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; or by phone at 206-526-6150. Copies of the Small Entity Compliance Guide are available on the West Coast Region's Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to the West Coast Region and by email to [email protected], or fax to (202) 395-7285.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Keeley Kent, 206-526-4655, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This final rule modifies regulations to reallocate widow rockfish QS in the Pacific coast groundfish fishery trawl rationalization program and to allow the transfer of widow rockfish QS. The following sections describe: (1) The original allocation of widow rockfish under the trawl rationalization program, (2) rationale for why the Council selected the final preferred alternative (FPA), and (3) this final rule.

    NMFS published a proposed rule for this action on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42295). The comment period on the proposed rule ended on July 29, 2016. NMFS received two comment letters with 12 substantive comments. A summary of these comments and NMFS's responses are provided in the Comments and Responses section of this preamble. The preamble to the proposed rule provides more background and information on the history of initial quota share allocation, widow rockfish rebuilding, and the Council's decision to reallocate widow rockfish QS, as well as a description of the reallocation formula, eligibility, and the application process for reallocated widow rockfish QS. The preamble to the proposed rule also describes the timeline for trading widow rockfish QS, the deadline for divestiture should the reallocation of widow rockfish put any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, and the removal of the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish.

    Background on Allocations Under the Trawl Rationalization Program

    The Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP specifies management measures for over 90 different species of rockfish, flatfish, roundfish, sharks, skates, and other species, in Federal waters off the West Coast states. Target species in the commercial fishery include Pacific hake (whiting), sablefish, dover sole, and rockfish, which are harvested by vessels using primarily midwater and bottom trawl gear, but also fish pots and hook and line. The LE trawl fishery is managed under the trawl rationalization program, a catch share program, which was implemented through Amendment 20 to the FMP and corresponding implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 660 in January 2011. Amendment 20 established the trawl rationalization program that consists of: An IFQ program for the shorebased trawl fleet (including Pacific whiting and nonwhiting sectors), and cooperative programs for the at-sea mothership and catcher/processor trawl fleets (Pacific whiting only). Concurrently, Amendment 21 set long-term allocations for the LE trawl sectors of certain groundfish species.

    In Amendment 20, the Council used different formulas to allocate overfished, non-overfished, and bycatch species. Allocations of QS for each species were made based on each LE permit's Pacific whiting trips and nonwhiting trips. For the QS allocated for nonwhiting trips, the allocation formula for non-overfished species (target species) was different from that used for overfished species. For target species (which, at the time did not include widow rockfish) individuals received allocations based on their LE permits' harvest history of those species during the 1994 through 2003 allocation period.

    For overfished species, QS was distributed to each recipient to meet expected bycatch based on the recipient's target species QS allocation (bycatch species). Overfished species QS was allocated in proportion to the amount of target species QS a person received, taking into account area of fishing and likely bycatch rates. Using this approach, many individuals received very low initial allocations of overfished species even though they had significantly depended on targeting the species and had fished within harvest levels permissible at the time. Amendment 20 to the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP states that when an overfished species is rebuilt, there may be a reallocation of QS in the Shorebased IFQ sector to facilitate the reestablishment of historic fishing opportunities.

    Widow Rockfish Fishery

    Widow rockfish was historically an important target species in the groundfish fishery, particularly for midwater trawl and bottom trawl vessels (see Section 1.4.1 of the EA). Vessels using midwater trawl gear take widow rockfish both as bycatch on Pacific whiting targeted trips and as a strategy targeting on pelagic rockfish, in which widow rockfish is caught jointly with yellowtail rockfish. Widow rockfish is also caught along with other species on trips using bottom trawl gear.

    Catches of widow rockfish peaked in 1981 at 26,938 metric tons (mt) (59,388,124 pounds), then declined as the stock became overfished (see Section 1.4.1 of the EA). Widow rockfish was declared overfished in 2001 and NMFS implemented measures to reduce catch of this and other rockfish species in the 2000s, including Rockfish Conservation Areas (RCAs) and area-based gear restrictions and trip limits. Widow rockfish was still considered overfished in 2011 when the Council and NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization program and thus widow rockfish was allocated using an overfished species formula. Therefore, the QS allocations purposely did not reflect the historical fishing efforts of fishermen who may have targeted widow rockfish before it was declared overfished. However, shortly after implementing the trawl rationalization program in 2011, NMFS and the Council received the results of a new assessment that indicated that widow rockfish was rebuilt. The results of the assessment also indicated that widow rockfish may never have been overfished.

    Council Rationale for Its Final Preferred Alternative (FPA)

    In April 2015, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council or PFMC) made a final recommendation to NMFS to reallocate the rebuilt widow rockfish stock to the Shorebased IFQ Program using a modified target species formula. The Council selected this alternative (Alternative 5) as its final preferred alternative (FPA) because this alternative best met the purpose and need of the action, which was to implement a policy that allows historical widow rockfish fishery participants to benefit from the renewed fishing opportunities through a direct reallocation rather than having to acquire widow rockfish QS on the open market.

    NMFS has determined that the Council's recommendation to reallocate widow rockfish QS to the Shorebased IFQ Program using a modified target species formula is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, and other applicable law. This determination is based on NMFS's review of the administrative record, including the Council's record, and NMFS's consideration of comments received during the comment period for the proposed rule. After considering the required statutory factors and the goals and objectives of the trawl rationalization program and the Pacific Coast Groundfish FMP, NMFS has determined that the Council's recommended reallocation formula provides for a fair and equitable allocation to the Shorebased IFQ Program, including between and among the Pacific whiting and nonwhiting participants.

    The Council recommended to NMFS, and NMFS is approving through this final rule, Alternative 5, a target species formula based on the formula used at the time of initial implementation of the trawl rationalization program. The Alternative 5 reallocation formula holds 10 percent of the total widow rockfish QS aside for the adaptive management program (AMP), divides a portion of the total widow rockfish QS (30 percent) equally among all participants (those owning LE permits in 2011), and allocates a portion of the total widow rockfish QS (60 percent) based on widow rockfish landings history, separately for Pacific whiting trip history (9 percent of the total widow rockfish QS) and nonwhiting trip history (51 percent of the total widow rockfish QS). Pacific whiting trips are defined as those trips where more than 50 percent of the catch is Pacific whiting.

    The Council and NMFS balanced the use of the control date, investment and dependence in the fishery, potential disruption from reallocation, and the potential impacts on communities and determined that there are fundamental reasons to adopt the Council's recommendation, also known as the Council's final preferred alternative (FPA). The Council and NMFS selected Alternative 5 as the FPA due to its ability to quickly and efficiently reestablish the historic target fishery for widow rockfish by allocating to those participants who targeted widow rockfish during the historic target fishery period, represented by the years 1994-2002. The FPA is also most consistent with the directive established by Amendment 20 to the FMP to reestablish historic fishing opportunities when a stock is rebuilt.

    Amendment 20 directs the Council to consider a direct reallocation for species that were under a rebuilding plan during initial allocation and subsequently have been rebuilt, as a means to more quickly reestablish targeting opportunities for those who had a history of participation in a target fishery. The Council and NMFS interpreted this Amendment 20 provision as a commitment to individuals and communities that historically harvested and invested in the fishery (see Section 2.3 of the EA). As a species becomes rebuilt, reallocating to those individuals would take into account historic fishing investment and dependence on those species. With respect to widow rockfish, there is an additional consideration in that stock assessments now indicate that widow rockfish was potentially never overfished. Had the species been declared rebuilt one management cycle earlier (or never declared overfished), widow rockfish would have been allocated in 2011 based on the Amendment 20 allocation formula for target species.

    Absent a reallocation of widow rockfish QS, QS permit owners would continue to hold an amount of widow rockfish QS that reflected their bycatch needs rather than their target needs. In order to obtain enough QS to target widow rockfish, those permit owners interested in targeting widow rockfish would then have to purchase widow rockfish QS on the open market. This form of redistribution to enable the reestablishment of a target fishery without reallocation could take a long time and involve high transaction costs.

    Control Date

    Alternative 5 maintains the integrity of the control date, November 6, 2003, by not rewarding speculative fishing history that occurred after the control date. As described in detail in NMFS's final rule on the reconsideration of the initial allocation of Pacific whiting quota (78 FR 18879; March 28, 2013), the Council adopted and announced a control date in 2003 to reduce overcapitalization and end the race for fish. The Council sought to discourage speculative capitalization and discourage effort by putting participants on notice that any fishing history earned beyond 2003 may not count towards a future allocation system. During the development of Amendment 20, many participants commented on how the control date would affect their business decisions. NMFS acknowledges that the control date is not a guarantee that any specific period will count toward initial allocations. However, NMFS believes that recognizing the history and business decisions of those that interpreted the control date as signaling the end of the qualifying period is appropriate and consistent with the purposes of Amendment 20. While no mechanism exists to separate speculative from non-speculative effort following a control date, maintaining the control date does not reward speculation that may have occurred to the detriment of those that honored the control date. Furthermore, as the control date provided adequate notice to those participants that chose to make further capital investments after the fact that those investments may not affect their allocations, it is not inconsistent with the MSA, unfair, or inequitable, to not reward that speculation by not incorporating that history.

    Fairness and Equity

    The MSA specifies that initial allocations must be “fair and equitable,” and include consideration of current and historical harvests, employment in the harvesting and processing sectors, investments in and dependence upon the fishery, current and historical participation of fishing communities, the basic cultural and social framework of the fishery, including promoting the sustained participation of small fishing vessels and communities, and procedures to address concerns over excessive geographic concentration and prevent the inequitable concentration of privileges and excessive shares. NMFS finds that the Council's recommended Alternative 5 reallocation formula is a fair and equitable allocation to the Shorebased IFQ Program. Alternative 5 struck the best balance between achieving the Council's purpose and need for this action, as defined by Amendment 20, and minimizing disruption to existing QS holders, processors, and communities.

    The Council and NMFS acknowledged that under widow rockfish reallocation there would be current QS permit owners who would gain or lose widow rockfish QS to varying degrees, depending on the reallocation alternative chosen. The Council considered a range of alternatives, on a spectrum of reallocation including no action and four action alternatives. Under widow rockfish reallocation (the Council's FPA, Alternative 5), compared to status quo: 63 of 128 eligible QS permits will lose widow rockfish QS, 63 will gain widow rockfish QS, and 2 will hold the same amount of widow rockfish QS. Specifically, Table 4-7 of the EA shows that currently, the maximum allocation of the total widow rockfish QS pool to an individual LE permit holder is 2.11 percent, the minimum allocation is 0.02 percent. Under Alternative 5, the maximum allocation to an individual LE permit holder will be 1.98 percent of the total widow rockfish QS pool and the minimum allocation will be 0.18 percent. For those that will receive more widow rockfish QS, the average increase will be 0.34 percent of the total widow rockfish pool. For those that will receive less widow rockfish QS, the average decrease will be 0.34 percent of the total widow rockfish pool. As described above, all of the eligible permits will, at a minimum, be reallocated 0.177 percent of the total widow rockfish QS from the equal sharing portion of the reallocation formula, plus a portion from their landings history, if they had landings history. Despite the fact that 63 QS permits will lose widow rockfish QS under reallocation, this loss may be mitigated by the substantial increase in the widow rockfish annual catch limits (ACL) that has occurred for 2017 and 2018, which will result in significantly more QP for many permit holders than they have been issued in all prior years since the start of the trawl rationalization program.

    Now that widow rockfish is no longer managed as a bycatch species under a rebuilding plan, the Shorebased IFQ Program's widow rockfish allocation has increased from 342.62 mt (755,348 pounds) in 2011, to 11,392.7 mt (25,116,604 pounds) in 2017. In 2018, the widow rockfish allocation to the Shorebased IFQ Program will be 10,661.5 mt (23,504,584 pounds). Consequently, with the reallocation, each QS permit owner eligible for a reallocated widow rockfish QS amount will receive a minimum of 41,602 quota pounds (QPs) in 2018 from the equal share portion of the formula for each LE permit history (0.177 percent). Every QS permit will be allocated more widow rockfish QP in 2018 than in any of the first 6 years of the Shorebased IFQ Program due to the increasing ACL.

    Current and Historical Harvests

    The Council's FPA, Alternative 5, directly incorporates current and historical harvests and strikes a balance between these two sometimes competing factors. The Alternative 5 formula uses historic widow rockfish fishing history to reallocate a portion of the widow rockfish QS to QS holders, and provided the greatest weight to widow rockfish history compared to the other alternatives. This portion of the formula most advantaged those participants with widow rockfish fishing history when widow rockfish was a target fishery.

    The Alternative 5 formula also acknowledges more recent participation and history by equally allocating a portion of the QS to all QS permit owners eligible for reallocation. This moderates the effects of the formula on recent participants from the use of widow fishing history. Alternative 5, as with all the other alternatives, allocates QS to existing QS permit holders, and not to other classes of participants, such as limited entry permit (LEP) holders, recognizing the investment that these participants made in either having a long history in the fishery or having made an investment by purchasing the history from those that did. These are current participants in the fishery, because widow rockfish QS has not changed hands since the initial allocation in 2011. See Amendment 20 for a more detailed discussion on how the Council decided to allocate to QS permit holders (75 FR 60868; October 1, 2010).

    Although ultimately not selected, the Council considered alternatives that would have given more weight to recent fishing history and revenues for other groundfish species. It was not possible to use fishing history for the most recent catch of widow rockfish, because widow rockfish catches have been heavily depressed by its overfished status and measures to reduce its catch until only recently, so the Council considered groundfish revenues for 2003-2010. This was an advantage to those that had high total revenues because of other groundfish species, but at the expense of those more dependent on widow rockfish that could not effectively target it during that period.

    Communities

    This final rule will have effects on communities, which are described in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the EA and RIR. Section 4.4.3 of the EA notes that the estimated amount of QS redistributed among port communities is 17 percent. However, the EA also notes that due to the low ACL for widow rockfish during the first few years of the trawl rationalization program, community dependence on widow rockfish has been low across Washington, Oregon, and California. Therefore, NMFS does not expect that the geographic redistribution of QS will have a significant impact on communities. Additionally, the impacts of reallocation are not expected to be significant because widow rockfish comprises a small portion of the trawl groundfish fishery, and widow rockfish would be a small portion of the groundfish landings in any particular geographic area. Further, geographic distributions are likely to be driven more by the trading of QPs. While QS may be less fluid, the distribution among communities and implication of the FPA is harder to track because QS owners do not necessarily use their QS/QP in the communities in which they reside.

    As discussed in Section 4.2 of the EA, over the long term, the reallocation of QS is not expected to substantially affect the distribution of landings relative to status quo. However, there may be some short term variations if those receiving the allocations run their own harvesting or processing operations (and hence are more likely to use the QS in the areas of their own operations). Overall, changes in the distribution of widow rockfish QS among ports as a result of reallocation are small relative to some of the inter-port variations in landings observed to date for the overall groundfish fishery.

    Investment and Dependence

    In making its final recommendation, the Council took into consideration the investments of fishery participants and the relative dependence of Pacific whiting and nonwhiting participants, processors, and communities. The Alternative 5 formula strikes a balance between Pacific whiting and nonwhiting participants, because it provides an advantage to neither. Alternative 2a would have provided more advantage to Pacific whiting vessels at the expense of nonwhiting vessels, and Alternative 2b would have had the opposite effect due to the weighting of whiting versus nonwhiting trips. Rather than provide one group of participants an advantage over the other, the Council created and selected, as their FPA, Alternative 5 as the midpoint between the two. The Council also created an equal allocation portion of the QS that provided equal QS to those with and without widow history, and to Pacific whiting and nonwhiting vessels.

    The Council also considered and incorporated the historic dependence of widow fishermen and the communities in which they reside, by making a portion of the allocation based on widow fishing history. Alternative 3 would have put greater emphasis on revenues when widow was not a target species and reflected the investment of those that were not targeting widow rockfish. This contradicted the Council's purpose and need and its overall policy, implemented through Amendment 20, of acknowledging the investment of those with fishing history for target species. Alternative 4 would have maintained existing allocations, emphasizing the dependence of those with more QP recently, but would have diluted the benefits of this action and the overall effectiveness of this action at achieving the Council's objectives.

    Widow rockfish QS has not been transferable since the time of initial allocation in 2011 (except under U.S. court order), therefore, no investments in widow rockfish QS have occurred yet, other than initial investment in the trawl LE permit through which initial allocations and the reallocation of widow rockfish QS were assigned. The initial allocation of widow rockfish QS was based on the expectation that recipients would be dependent on widow rockfish QS as bycatch to access target species allocations, rather than depend on it for the revenue generated by catching widow rockfish itself. For this reason, there has not been much dependence on widow rockfish QS for targeting needs since 2011; rather the vessels that depend on widow rockfish purchase or trade widow rockfish QP to meet their needs. With rebuilding, businesses have an opportunity to develop an economic reliance on widow rockfish QS for direct revenue (rather than as an input needed to access other species). When converted to ex-vessel revenue equivalents, widow rockfish QS is a relatively minor portion of the QS portfolios currently held by business entities. This rule may affect those vessels that regularly purchase widow rockfish QP for the purposes of directed fishing, by disrupting the existing trade relationships (as discussed in Section 3.3.1(b)(1) of the EA). However, NMFS assumes that these vessels would be able to seek out new trade relationships after the reallocation.

    Overall employment is not expected to change through widow rockfish reallocation, but may be redistributed among firms, and geographically redistributed among communities. Geographic redistribution effects are expected to be greatest over the short term and diminish with time. The projected geographic reallocations did not vary substantially among reallocation alternatives.

    Summary

    The FPA, like all of the action alternatives considered, affects vessels, processors, vessel and processor employment, and communities to varying degrees indirectly through the allocations—except that vessel and processor owners may be directly affected to the degree that they acquired an initial allocation of QS due to their ownership of a trawl LE permit. Because the ACLs of widow rockfish have only recently increased enough to allow targeting, and the FPA would provide each QS permit owners more QP in 2018 than they received in any of the first 6 years of the program, the reallocation of widow rockfish QS is not expected to substantially disrupt recent activities nor is it expected to have significant adverse effects on recent investments. The Council and NMFS considered the moratorium on widow rockfish QS trading as providing a strong signal of the impending reallocation, providing individuals an opportunity to anticipate widow rockfish QS reallocation as part of their recent investment planning.

    The Council and NMFS considered expected impacts of the FPA on harvesters, processors, industry, investments, and communities, using the most recent data available, as reflected in the EA. The Council and NMFS determined that the FPA struck a balance between impacts to the Pacific whiting and nonwhiting fishery; and between re-establishing historic fisheries and the geographic distribution of impacts among the communities in Washington, Oregon, and California. Specifically, this final rule best reflects how widow rockfish would have been allocated at the start of the program if it had not been managed under a rebuilding plan at that time.

    This action is part of an overall program designed to ensure that conservation objectives are met and to mitigate some of the distributional effects of those conservation measures. As compared to other action alternatives, the FPA fulfills the Council's purpose and need to reestablish the historic targeted widow rockfish fishery.

    Description of This Final Rule

    Below is a brief description of this final rule. For a more detailed description, please see the preamble of the proposed rule (81 FR 42295; June 29, 2016). This final rule will: (1) Reallocate QS to initial recipients based on a target species formula that will more closely represent the fishing history of permit owners when widow rockfish was a targeted species, (2) allow the trading of widow rockfish quota shares, (3) set a deadline for divestiture in case the reallocation of widow rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, and (4) remove the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish since it is no longer an overfished species.

    This final rule will reallocate widow rockfish QS. QS permit owners are only eligible for a reallocation of widow rockfish if they are one of the 128 original QS permit owners who initially received a QS permit in 2011 based on LE trawl permit ownership at that time. For those new QS permits to which NMFS administratively transferred widow rockfish QS based on a U.S. court order or due to the death of a QS holder, NMFS will reallocate widow rockfish QS directly to these new QS permits because the shares were transferred through a legal process to a beneficiary. The 10 shorebased Pacific whiting processors who received initial QS permits with only an initial allocation of Pacific whiting are not eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS. Past landings history associated with each LE trawl permit will accrue to the current QS permit owner who received initial QS for that LE permit, even if the LE trawl permit ownership has changed since 2011.

    For purposes of the widow rockfish reallocation calculation, NMFS will use landings data from the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission's Pacific Fishery Information Network (PacFIN) database. The proposed rule published on June 29, 2016, put the public on notice that NMFS would freeze the PacFIN dataset to be used in calculating the reallocation of widow rockfish on July 27, 2016. QS permit owners were instructed to contact their state fisheries data staff if they had concerns about the accuracy of their data. NMFS notes that there were no changes to the widow rockfish landings in the database for any QS permit holder's fishing history. NMFS then extracted a dataset of the PacFIN database on July 27, 2016, and will use that dataset for the reallocation of widow rockfish. As there was a delay between the publication of the proposed rule and the final rule, NMFS reconfirmed with PacFIN that there were no changes to the data extract after the freeze.

    After determining the new widow rockfish allocations, NMFS will mail prefilled applications and widow rockfish reallocation QS amounts to each eligible QS permit owner (calculated using the formula in this final rule). On the application, the applicant (the QS permit owner) must: (1) Indicate whether or not they accept NMFS's calculation of the reallocated widow rockfish QS for each LE trawl permit, (2) provide a written description of what part of the reallocation formula requires correction and credible information to support the request for correction if they do not accept the calculation, and (3) sign, date and declare that the information in the application is true, correct and complete. Complete, certified applications must be submitted to the NMFS West Coast Region (see ADDRESSES). NMFS will not accept or review any applications postmarked or received in person after the application deadline, and any QS permit owner who does not submit an application would not be eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS. NMFS will not accept applications by email. NMFS will redistribute the shares from any incomplete or non-submitted applications to all other QS permit owners who are eligible for a reallocation of widow rockfish QS in proportion to their reallocated widow QS amount.

    Following review of an application, NMFS will issue an initial administrative determination (IAD). In the IAD, NMFS will inform the applicant whether or not their application for reallocated widow rockfish QS was approved. Applicants would have 60 calendar days from the date of the IAD to appeal the decision. If any appeals are received, NMFS will reallocate widow QS amounts in 2018 consistent with all of the IADs and await any action resulting from an appeal until January 1, 2019. This is because the timeline of an appeal would be unknown, and new allocations are most easily implemented at the start of a calendar year.

    If an application is approved, the QS permit owner will receive a 2018 QS permit showing the new widow rockfish QS amount, and the new QS percentage would show in the associated QS account when updated in 2018. Under this final rule, NMFS has the authority to issue widow rockfish QP for 2018 to QS accounts under one of two processes, depending upon the timing of publication of this final rule. The first process would be that NMFS would deposit QP into accounts on or about January 1, 2018, based on the IAD. Alternatively, widow rockfish QP may be allocated in two steps to QS accounts. Under the two-step process, on or about January 1, 2018, NMFS would deposit QP based on the lesser of the initial allocation under Amendment 20 or the reallocation under this rule to each individual account. Then, after NMFS finalizes the IAD, NMFS would deposit additional QP to the QS account as necessary.

    An additional effect of implementing the Council's recommendations, through this final rule, is that after reallocation, some QS permit holders may be required to divest of widow rockfish QS in order to be in compliance with the control limits. Control limits in the Shorebased IFQ Program cap the amount of QS or individual bycatch quota (IBQ) that a person, individually or collectively, may own or control. Amendment 20 and implementing regulations set individual control limits for each of the 30 IFQ species, including widow rockfish, as well as an aggregate limit of 2.7 percent across nonwhiting species (50 CFR 660.140(d)(4)(C)). The individual control limit for widow rockfish is 5.1 percent.

    NMFS will allow the QS permit owner an adjustment period to hold the excess shares and divest. The divestiture deadline is November 30 in the year widow rockfish QS becomes transferrable. If NMFS does not receive any appeals on the reallocation, widow QS would become transferrable in early 2018, and any QS permit owner who exceeded the control limit as the result of the reallocation will have until November 30, 2018, to divest of their excess holdings. After the appeal deadline has passed, NMFS will issue a public notice to notify QS permit holders of when trading may begin. If NMFS does receive one or more appeals, widow QS will become transferrable on or about January 1, 2019, and any QS permit owner who exceeded the control limit as the result of the reallocation would have until November 30, 2019, to divest of their excess holdings. QS trading occurs between January 1 through November 30 each year. Trading is halted in the month of December so that NMFS can set QP allocations based on the static year-end amount of QS and mail QS permits that are effective January 1 of the following year. This adjustment period will allow the permit owner to benefit from holding excess QS, and from the sale or gifting of such an excess, but they will be required to divest of their excess QS in a timely manner, consistent with existing regulatory procedures.

    Through this final rule, NMFS also removes the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish since daily vessel limits were developed with the intent to apply only to overfished species. NMFS will remove the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish only, and will not change widow's annual vessel limit or the daily or annual vessel limits of any other species. This change will better reflect the status of widow rockfish as rebuilt, and allow fishermen to hold the full annual vessel limit at any time if they chose to do so, in line with every other non-overfished IFQ species.

    Due to a delay in the development and publication of this final rule, many of the timelines associated with implementing this rulemaking have been updated since the proposed rule. Additionally, other deadlines are dependent on whether or not NMFS receives appeals on the reallocation of widow rockfish. NMFS will provide the affected public an updated list of deadlines in the Small Entity Compliance Guide (see ADDRESSES).

    Response to Comments

    The comment period on the proposed rule ended July 29, 2016. NMFS received two comment letters that included 12 substantive comments on the proposed rule, one from a law firm representing a harvester/processor company, and one from a fisherman. Comments from both letters are addressed below.

    Comment 1: One commenter supports a timely and fair reallocation of widow rockfish, the elimination of the moratorium on widow rockfish QS trading, and the removal of the overfished species daily vessel limit.

    Response: NMFS agrees with the commenter that the reallocation of widow rockfish should be fair and timely. NMFS also agrees that trading widow rockfish QS is an important aspect of the trawl rationalization program. In some cases the moratorium on widow rockfish QS trading has prevented QS permit owners' ability to supplement their QS portfolio or retire out of the fishery. NMFS notes that this final rule, consistent with the proposed rule, specifies that any appeals will delay the QS transfer start date for widow rockfish QS in order to prevent trading of an amount that may be adjusted later through appeal. If no appeals are received, widow rockfish QS trading will begin in early 2018, following a public notice from NMFS. As discussed under the description of the final rule, if appeals are received, QS trading will begin January 1, 2019. Last, NMFS agrees that the overfished species daily vessel limit should be removed since widow rockfish is no longer considered an overfished species.

    Comment 2: Both commenters assert that the reallocation does not adequately account for current harvests of, and present dependence on, widow rockfish.

    Response: The Council and NMFS took into account current harvests of, and present dependence on, widow rockfish in coming to this final reallocation decision. The widow rockfish reallocation alternatives that the Council considered examined reallocating widow rockfish QS using catch history based on a wide range of years (1994-2010) that went as far back as possible to include historical widow rockfish harvests, given the best available scientific information on the groundfish trawl fleet prior to implementation of Amendment 20. Catch history from 2010 was the most recent considered in the reallocation alternatives the Council considered since it was the last year of catch history before the trawl rationalization program was implemented. The Council did not include years beyond 2010 in the allocation alternatives because the QS and resulting QP held by permit owners reflected bycatch needs instead of target fishery needs. Thus including post-2010 years was not consistent with the objective of the action, which is to facilitate the re-establishment of historic target fishing opportunities. However, the Council and NMFS did consider more recent participation and harvest by using more recent information to assess the impacts of each alternative (in some cases information from 2014, 2015, or 2016, depending on the most recent year available for the relevant data set).

    The Council considered but rejected from further analysis the alternative that would have based reallocation of QS solely on more recent participation (2003-2010) (Alternative 3) because it did not adequately meet the primary purpose and need for the action, which is to re-establish historic fishing opportunities (see Section 2.3 of the EA). In addition, Alternative 3 would have rewarded catch history after the control date and prior to the initial allocation of QS, potentially adversely impacting the effectiveness of future control dates.

    While the Council ultimately did not select Alternative 3, components of the FPA do recognize recent participation. Under the FPA, 30 percent of the widow rockfish QS will be divided equally among all the QS accounts held by participants who owned a LE permit in 2011. This provides a benefit to more recent participants. Additionally, using LE permits as the basis for allocation places some weight on investment and dependence by entities that recently entered the fishery just before or after the end of the allocation history period and up until the time of initial allocation in 2011. This equal allocation element ensures that those with LE permits that had stronger participation after 2003 than before receive some widow QS allocation. The equal allocation alone will meet or exceed the bycatch needs of many.

    Comment 3: One commenter stated that contrary to what is stated in the proposed rule, using the fishing history from 1994 to 2002 is not following the same methodology as was used in the initial allocation because the initial allocation methodology did not use data that was 15 to 23 years in the past.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. By using the same fishing years (1994 to 2002), NMFS is following the original allocation methodology used in Amendment 20 to the FMP and providing consistency in the catch history used for this reallocation. While the fishing history years are now more dated, using the same range allows the Council and NMFS to preserve the snapshot of the trawl fisheries it created with Amendment 20.

    Comment 4: One commenter asserted that the control date (November 6, 2003) used in this action is not applicable to the reallocation of widow rockfish because there was no directed fishery for widow rockfish between 2002 and 2010. Therefore, there is no danger of rewarding speculative effort by using more recent years. Additionally, it's not reasonable for PFMC to consider reallocating other overfished species using the control date in the future due to the staleness of the control date.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. First, the control date was determined to be a valid control by the District Court in Pac. Dawn, LLC v. Pritzker, No. C13-1419 TEH, 2013 WL 6354421 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013), which the 9th Circuit affirmed, Pac. Dawn LLC v. Pritzker, 831 F.3d 1166, 1179 (9th Cir. 2016). Second, the Council considered and rejected using data from 2003 to 2010 for the reallocation because it did not adequately meet the primary purpose and need for the action, which is to re-establish historic fishing opportunities (Section 1.3 of the EA). Additionally, the Council noted, and NMFS agrees, that using landings from 2003 to 2010 would reward catch history after the control date, during a time when the stock was overfished, and prior to the initial allocation of QS, potentially adversely impacting the effectiveness of future control dates. However, NMFS notes that reallocating QS among current QS holders rather than another class of participants does take into account current investment in the fishery (in the form of the investments in LE permits as an asset and the subsequent holding of the QS which devolved from that investment).

    Additionally, the EA notes in Section 2.3 that the Council stated this reallocation of widow QS was not necessarily a precedent for future reallocations of other currently overfished species. Widow QS trading had been frozen to facilitate reallocation in anticipation that the stock would soon be rebuilt and such an action has not been taken with regard to other overfished species. As noted in the EA in Section 2.3, it is likely that widow will be the only overfished species for which QS can be reallocated based on pre-catch share program historic harvest because the widow QS trading moratorium allows that QS to be tied back to those historic landings through the catch history of the vessel LE permits, which were used as the basis for establishing the initial allocations. This will not be possible for other overfished species since QS for those species has already been subject to trading, and tracking each of those trades across multiple transactions and QS owners for reallocation purposes likely would be unfeasible.

    Comment 5: One comment asserts that NMFS's proposal to use two different catch history periods when reallocating widow rockfish is unlawful. This proposal would use the catch history from 1994 to 2003 for all buyback permits and for Pacific whiting landings history, but would drop the 2003 fishing year for nonwhiting landings history. The commenter alleges there is no legitimate explanation for differentiating between Pacific whiting and nonwhiting widow landings history in 2003 or for not including 2003 in the nonwhiting landings history.

    Response: For the initial allocations of target (non-overfished) species under Amendment 20, the historical landing period was 1994-2003. NMFS and the Council used 2003 because it was when the control date was announced by the Council and NMFS. The EA notes in Section 2.1.2(b) that for the purposes of the widow rockfish reallocation, 2003 was left off the historic fishing period for nonwhiting trips because regulations were implemented in 2002 designed to discourage widow rockfish harvest (67 FR 10489; March 7, 2002). 2002 was the last full year widow rockfish was managed as a “target species” instead of an overfished species. Therefore, excluding 2003 from the historic fishing period was consistent with the intent of allowing historical directed fishery participants to benefit from the renewed fishing opportunities through a direct reallocation. Since only a few vessels made landings in 2003 and because the allocation formula calculates history based on share of the fleet's total catch, a relatively small amount of widow landed by a single LE permit could constitute a large portion of the fleet total for that year and have a disproportionate effect on the allocation for that LE permit. Therefore, 2003 is not included in the allocation formula for nonwhiting landings history.

    Comment 6: Both commenters expressed concern that reallocating widow rockfish to current QS permit owners fails to recognize the widow rockfish fishing history associated with the LE permits because several LE permits have changed ownership since 2002.

    Response: Based on the Council's action, NMFS will reallocate widow rockfish based on the LE permit and QS permit relationship described above because the LE permit ownership was severed from the QS permit ownership at the time QS permits became effective in 2011. After that time, LE trawl permits could be sold without any effect on the QS holdings, and QS percentages could be transferred without any effect on the LE permit. NMFS believes it is likely that QS permit owners would not have sold their LE trawl permits if they thought they would not receive the reallocated widow rockfish QS, and similarly, that it is likely that any persons who purchased a LE trawl permit did not believe that they would receive any future QS as part of the purchase.

    Past landings history associated with each LE trawl permit will accrue to the current QS permit owner who received initial QS for that LE permit, even if the LE trawl permit ownership has changed since 2011. For example, if the fictitious company XYZ Fishing owned two LE trawl permits in 2010: Permit A and Permit B, they would have received a QS permit (QS Permit #1) in 2011 with an initial issuance of QS that was based on the history of LE trawl Permits A and B. For the purposes of widow rockfish reallocation, the linkage between LE trawl Permits A and B and QS Permit #1 will remain in place, so that QS Permit #1 will be reallocated widow rockfish QS based on the history from LE trawl Permits A and B, regardless of who owns those LE trawl permits now. If XYZ Fishing sold both LE trawl permits in 2013, and therefore no longer owns them at the time widow rockfish is reallocated, the company would still receive the reallocated widow rockfish QS from LE Permits A and B to QS Permit #1.

    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the reallocation would reduce his widow rockfish QS holdings, and that he will be forced to lease quota pounds.

    Response: NMFS acknowledges that 65 of 128 original QS permit owners will receive decreased allocations of widow rockfish QS under the reallocation formula, while 64 of 128 original QS permit owners will receive increased allocations of widow rockfish QS under the reallocation formula. Table 4-7 of the EA shows that currently, the maximum allocation of the total widow rockfish QS pool to an individual LE permit holder is 2.11 percent, the minimum allocation is 0.02 percent. Under Alternative 5, the maximum allocation to an individual LE permit holder will be 1.98 percent of the total widow rockfish QS pool and the minimum allocation will be 0.18 percent. For those that will receive more widow rockfish QS, the average increase will be 0.34 percent of the total widow rockfish pool. For those that will receive less widow rockfish QS, the average decrease will be 0.34 percent of the total widow rockfish pool. Although these changes may affect some permit holders more than others, the ACL and annual Shorebased IFQ Program allocation have increased dramatically now that widow rockfish has been rebuilt, meaning that the quota pound equivalent of each share is now worth more. For example, a permit owner who holds one percent of widow rockfish QS would have been allocated 7,553 pounds in 2011 and 2,790,730 pounds in 2017. This means that even with a decrease in an individual QS permit owner's widow rockfish QS under reallocation, the permit owner will still likely be able to meet their bycatch needs since each share is worth more than 350 times in terms of QP than at the time of initial allocation in 2011.

    NMFS also notes that this final rule will allow the transfer of widow rockfish QS, which has been restricted since the implementation of the trawl rationalization program. The commenter would then be able to purchase widow QS on the open market to meet his needs.

    Comment 8: One commenter said that the time allotted for QS permit owners to review and revise their widow rockfish history prior to extracting a dataset from the PacFIN database was not sufficient.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. NMFS provided sufficient notification to QS permit owners to review their widow rockfish history prior to the publication of this final rule. Initially, QS permit owners had the opportunity to review their catch history, including for widow rockfish, when the original allocations for the trawl rationalization program were made in 2011. Specific to this rule, NMFS notified the public that QS permit owners should review, and if necessary revise their widow rockfish history in April 2016 at the Council meeting and again in the proposed rule, published on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42295). The proposed rule stated a deadline of July 27, 2016, for the data extraction. According to information provided by the States, all data requests were completed within the timeframe provided and NMFS is unaware of any outstanding data issues. There were no requested modifications to landing information.

    Comment 9: One commenter stated that the proposed rule will force QS permit holders to divest of widow rockfish QS, after NMFS already forced permit holders to divest in 2015. They allege that a second round of divestiture brings duplicative costs and is contrary to National Standards 7 and 8 of the MSA.

    Response: NMFS agrees that under this final rule, any QS permit holders that exceed an aggregate control rule after the reallocation of widow rockfish QS will be required to divest. However, NMFS notes that under this final rule, permit holders will have several months to divest and QS permit holders may sell their excess widow rockfish QS, which was allocated at no cost to the participant, thereby, allowing the participant to make a profit on the divestiture. Additionally, NMFS sent all eligible QS holders a preliminary notification of their widow rockfish QS reallocation amount when the proposed rule was published (81 FR 42295; June 29, 2016). This has provided QS holders over a year to determine whether they will need to divest or not under this final rule.

    National Standard 7 of the MSA states that, “Conservation and management measures shall, where practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication.” While the divestiture transaction may require some time investment on the part of the QS holder, selling QS that was allocated freely will only serve to provide a profit for the QS holder, thereby minimizing any costs associated. As the commenter noted, QS holders were previously required by Amendment 20 to divest any non-widow rockfish QS that exceeded an aggregate control rule. Due to the practicalities of the Council process and NMFS rulemaking, NMFS was not able to expedite the divestiture of widow rockfish QS required by this final rule with the divestiture required by Amendment 20 to the FMP.

    National Standard 8 of the MSA requires that an FMP take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities in order to provide for the sustained participation of such communities and minimize the adverse economic impacts on such communities. The EA explains that participation by vessels and first receivers in the widow rockfish fishery in all major participating areas (Coos Bay to Morro Bay, Astoria-Newport, and Bellingham-Ilwaco) during 2011-2014 was significantly lower than in 1996-1998 (Section 3.3.3). Overall, the EA notes that some reallocation of wealth and short term redistribution of economic activity among communities may occur under the action, however, any change would be minimal relative to overall community fishery and general economic activity (Section 4.4.3).

    Comment 10: One comment stated that the proposed reallocation of widow rockfish QS would force fishery participants to divest QS exceeding control limits, including the nonwhiting aggregate control limit of 2.7 percent. The commenter noted its disagreement with the nonwhiting aggregate control limit of 2.7 percent.

    Response: NMFS agrees that once this rule is effective, and widow QS is reallocated, some QS permit holders may be required to divest of some QS in order to comply with the aggregate control limits under Amendment 20 to the FMP. NMFS also notes that this final rule does not modify any of the aggregate control rules included in Amendment 20; therefore, this comment is outside the scope of this action.

    Comment 11: One commenter alleged that the proposed rule rewards the speculative behavior of people who purchased permits in advance of allocation and subsequent reallocation.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. This final rule recognizes the investments entities have made by way of purchasing permits in 2010 through the equal allocation portion of the reallocation design. However, there was no information that entities would have had prior to the initial allocation under the Shorebased IFQ Program that widow rockfish would be rebuilt, when it would be rebuilt, and that the Council would select the reallocation alternative included in this final rule. Therefore, NMFS does not believe this action rewards the speculative behavior described by the commenter.

    Comment 12: One commenter stated that the proposed rule does not address the need for widow rockfish QP as bycatch in the yellowtail rockfish midwater trawl fishery.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. This final rule will reallocate widow rockfish for the purposes of reestablishing a directed fishery. The main directed fishery for widow rockfish is the midwater trawl fishery, in which widow rockfish and yellowtail rockfish are commonly caught together as directed targets. Additionally, under this final rule, fishery participants will be able to purchase additional widow rockfish QS on the open market as a means to meet their bycatch needs.

    Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In the event that the widow rockfish reallocations are not finalized by January 1, 2018, NMFS will have authority, per temporary regulations added at 50 CFR 660.140(d)(1)(ii)(A)(4), to issue widow rockfish QP in two parts, first issuing interim QP to accounts on or about January 1, 2018, followed by the remaining QP, if applicable, after the IAD is finalized. Without this provision, if reallocations were not finalized on or about January 1, 2018, NMFS would have to wait to issue any widow rockfish QP until the IAD is finalized, meaning vessel accounts would have zero widow rockfish QP for some time early in 2018.

    NMFS changed the deadline for QS permit owners to submit their widow rockfish reallocation applications from September 15, 2016, to 30 days after the final rule publishes, which is the effective date of this rule, December 26, 2017. The proposed rule and this final rule were delayed in publishing, so the September 15, 2016, deadline was no longer feasible.

    After the application deadline, NMFS will mail initial administrative determinations (IAD) to applicants, and applicants will have 60 days from the time they receive their IAD to appeal. Because the application deadline change pushed the whole timeline back, the IAD appeal deadline will now fall in early 2018, instead of in 2016. Widow rockfish QS cannot be traded until after the IAD appeal deadline since any appeals may affect the amount of widow rockfish QS each QS permit owner was reallocated. If NMFS receives no appeals, widow rockfish QS trading would be allowed after notification from NMFS after the IAD appeal deadline. This is a change from the proposed rule, where NMFS had anticipated that the IAD appeal deadline would fall in 2016, and that if no appeals were received widow rockfish QS trading would be allowed on January 1, 2017. For this final rule, if no appeals are received, widow rockfish QS trading will be allowed in early 2018. If any IAD appeals are received, the start date for widow rockfish QS trading will be on January 1, 2019.

    Last, NMFS had previously intended to put out a public notice in December 2016 detailing whether any appeals were received, when widow rockfish QS trading would start, and set the abandonment and divestiture deadlines (which are dependent on the date QS trading starts), but because of the date changes described above, NMFS will now publish a public notice detailing the same information after the IAD appeal deadline.

    Classification

    Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this rule is consistent with the FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law.

    The Council prepared an EA for this action and the NMFS Assistant Administrator concluded in a “Finding of No Significant Impact” that there will be no significant impact on the human environment as a result of this rule. The EA is available on the Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/ or on NMFS's West Coast Groundfish Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/groundfish_catch_shares/rules_regulations/widow_rockfish_reallocation.html.

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this action is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    NMFS prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) under section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), which incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). A summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action are addressed below. NMFS also prepared an RIR for this action. A copy of the RIR and FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and per the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 604(a), the text of the FRFA follows:

    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As applicable, section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) after being required by that section or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking and when an agency promulgates a final rule under section 553 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code. The following paragraphs constitute the FRFA for this action.

    This FRFA incorporates the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), a summary of any significant issues raised by the public comments, NMFS's responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. Analytical requirements for the FRFA are described in the RFA, section 604(a)(1) through (6). FRFAs contain:

    1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;

    2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;

    3. The response of the agency to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) in response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments;

    4. A description and an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule will apply, or an explanation of why no such estimate is available;

    5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record; and

    6. A description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.

    The “universe” of entities to be considered in a FRFA generally includes only those small entities that can reasonably be expected to be directly regulated by the action. If the effects of the rule fall primarily on a distinct segment of the industry, or portion thereof (e.g., user group, gear type, geographic area), that segment will be considered the universe for purposes of this analysis.

    In preparing a FRFA, an agency may provide either a quantifiable or numerical description of the effects of a rule (and alternatives to the rule), or more general descriptive statements, if quantification is not practicable or reliable.

    Need for and Objective of This Final Rule

    In January 2011, NMFS implemented the trawl rationalization program (a catch share program) for the Pacific coast groundfish LE trawl fishery, which includes an individual fishing quota program for LE trawl participants. At the time of implementation, the widow rockfish stock was overfished and quota shares were allocated to quota share permit owners in the individual fishing quota program using an overfished species formula. Now that widow rockfish has been rebuilt, NMFS will reallocate quota shares to initial recipients based on a target species formula that more closely represents the fishing history of permit owners when widow rockfish was a targeted species. Through this final rule NMFS will allow the trading of widow rockfish quota shares, set a deadline for divestiture in case the reallocation of widow rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, and remove the daily vessel limit for widow rockfish since it is no longer an overfished species.

    Summary of Significant Issues Raised During Public Comment

    NMFS published the proposed rule to reallocate widow rockfish on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42295). An IRFA was prepared and summarized in the Classification section of the preamble to the proposed rule. The comment period on the proposed rule ended on July 29, 2016. NMFS received two comment letters that included 12 substantive comments on the proposed rule. None of these comments raise issues in response to the IRFA. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA did not file any comments on the IRFA or the proposed rule.

    Number and Description of Directly Regulated Small Entities

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    The SBA has established size criteria for all other major industry sectors in the United States, including fish processing businesses. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 750 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide. A wholesale business servicing the fishing industry is a small business if it employs 100 or fewer persons on a full-time, part-time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    The entities directly regulated by this action are QS permit holders. This rule will affect 128 QS permit owners who have received widow quota shares. When renewing their QS permits, permit owners are asked if they considered themselves small businesses based on the SBA definitions of small businesses provided above. Based on their responses, NMFS estimates that there are 110 small businesses affected by this rule.

    Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and which have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0648-0620. This final rule will require that widow rockfish QS permit holders submit an application for the widow rockfish reallocation. NMFS estimates the public reporting burden for this collection of information to average one hour per form, including the time for reviewing instructions, reviewing data and calculations for reallocated widow rockfish QS, and completing the form.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to This Final Rule That Minimize Economic Impacts on Small Entities

    NMFS does not believe that small businesses as a class of QS holders will be negatively impacted by the proposed reallocation of widow rockfish QS. The reallocation options decrease widow QS holdings for some small businesses while increasing QS holdings for other small businesses, based on historical reliance on widow rockfish as a target species. Despite the fact that 63 QS permits will lose widow rockfish QS under reallocation, this loss may be mitigated by the substantial increase in the widow rockfish ACL that has occurred for 2017 and 2018, which will result in significantly more QP for many permit holders than they have been issued since rationalization. Trading of widow QS should also be beneficial to all small businesses as it gives these businesses the option to buy, sell, or lease their widow QS. Setting the divesture deadline gives any affected entities time to sell off their excess QS. Eliminating the no-longer-needed daily vessel limit for widow rockfish provides more flexibility to small businesses.

    Small Entity Compliance Guide

    Section 212 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 states that, for each rule or group of related rules for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis, the agency shall publish one or more guides to assist small entities in complying with the rule, and shall designate such publications as “small entity compliance guides.” The agency shall explain the actions a small entity is required to take to comply with a rule or group of rules. As part of this rulemaking process, a small entity compliance guide (the guide) was prepared. Copies of this final rule are available from the West Coast Regional Office (see ADDRESSES), and the guide will be included in a public notice sent to all members of the groundfish email group. To sign-up for the groundfish email group, click on the “subscribe” link on the following Web site: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/fishery_management/groundfish/public_notices/recent_public_notices.html. The guide and this final rule will also be available on the West Coast Region's Web site (see ADDRESSES) and upon request.

    Send comments regarding these burden estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected], or fax to 202-395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this rule was developed after meaningful collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Under the MSA at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Council must be a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. The regulations do not require the tribes to change from their current practices.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. In § 660.140: a. Add paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(A)(4); b. Revise paragraphs (d)(3)(ii)(B)(2) and (d)(4)(v); c. Add paragraph (d)(9); and d. Revise paragraph (e)(4)(i) to read as follows:
    § 660.140 Shorebased IFQ Program.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (4) In 2018, NMFS may make deposits to QS accounts for widow rockfish in two parts. If NMFS elects to issue widow rockfish QP in two parts, on or about January 1, NMFS will deposit interim QP based on the lesser of the initial allocation or the reallocation. After NMFS finalizes the IAD of widow rockfish QS, NMFS will deposit additional QP to the QS account as necessary.

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (B) * * *

    (2) Transfer of QS or IBQ between QS accounts. Beginning January 1, 2014, QS permit owners may transfer QS (except for widow rockfish QS) or IBQ to another owner of a QS permit, subject to accumulation limits and approval by NMFS. Once the IAD deadline has been reached and no appeals to the reallocation of widow rockfish have been submitted, or on January 1, 2019, if such an appeal has been submitted, QS permit owners may transfer widow rockfish QS to another owner of a QS permit, subject to accumulation limits and approval by NMFS. NMFS will announce the QS transfer date for widow rockfish after the IAD appeal deadline. QS or IBQ is transferred as a percent, divisible to one-thousandth of a percent (i.e., greater than or equal to 0.001%). QS or IBQ cannot be transferred to a vessel account. Owners of non-renewed QS permits may not transfer QS. QP in QS accounts cannot be transferred between QS accounts. NMFS will allocate QP based on the QS percentages as listed on a QS permit that was renewed during the previous October 1 through November 30 renewal period. QS transfers will be recorded in the QS account but will not become effective for purposes of allocating QPs until the following year. QS or IBQ may not be transferred between December 1 through December 31 each year. Any QS transaction that is pending as of December 1 will be administratively retracted. NMFS will allocate QP for the following year based on the QS percentages as of December 1 of each year.

    (4) * * *

    (v) Divestiture. Accumulation limits will be calculated by first calculating the aggregate nonwhiting QS limit and then the individual species QS or IBQ control limits. For QS permit owners (including any person who has ownership interest in the owner named on the permit) that are found to exceed the accumulation limits during the reallocation of widow rockfish QS, an adjustment period will be provided during which they will have to completely divest their QS or IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits. If NMFS identifies that a QS permit owner exceeds the accumulation limits in 2016 or beyond, the QS permit owner must divest of the QS or IBQ in excess of the accumulation limits according to the procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. Owners of QS or IBQ in excess of the control limits may receive and use the QP or IBQ pounds associated with that excess, up to the time their divestiture is completed.

    (A) Divestiture and redistribution process in 2016 and beyond. Any person owning or controlling QS or IBQ must comply with the accumulation limits, even if that control is not reflected in the ownership records available to NMFS as specified under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (iii) of this section. If NMFS identifies that a QS permit owner exceeds an accumulation limit in 2016 or beyond for a reason other than the reallocation of widow rockfish, NMFS will notify the QS permit owner that he or she has 90 days to divest of the excess QS or IBQ. In the case that a QS permit owner exceeds the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings, the QS permit owner may abandon QS to NMFS within 60 days of the notification by NMFS, using the procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this section. After the 90-day divestiture period, NMFS will revoke all QS or IBQ held by a person (including any person who has ownership interest in the owner names on the permit) in excess of the accumulation limits following the procedures specified under paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section. All abandoned or revoked shares will be redistributed to all other QS permit owners in proportion to their QS or IBQ holdings on or about January 1 of the following calendar year, based on current ownership records, except that no person will be allocated an amount of QS or IBQ that would put that person over an accumulation limit.

    (B) Divestiture and redistribution process for the reallocation of widow rockfish. Any person owning or controlling QS or IBQ must comply with the accumulation limits, even if that control is not reflected in the ownership records available to NMFS as specified under paragraphs (d)(4)(i) and (iii) of this section. If the reallocation of widow rockfish puts any QS permit owner over an accumulation limit, the QS permit owner will have until November 30 of the year widow rockfish becomes transferrable to divest of their excess widow rockfish QS. In the case that a QS permit owner exceeds the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings as the result of the reallocation of widow rockfish, the permit owner may abandon QS to NMFS by November 15 of the year widow rockfish becomes transferrable, using the procedure provided under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(C) of this section. NMFS will announce the QS transfer date for widow rockfish, the divestiture deadline, and the abandonment deadline after the widow reallocation IAD appeal deadline. After the widow rockfish reallocation divestiture period, NMFS will revoke all QS and IBQ held by a person (including any person who has ownership interest in the owner names on the permit) in excess of the accumulation limits following the procedures specified under paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(D) through (G) of this section. All abandoned or revoked shares will be redistributed to all other QS permit owners in proportion to their QS or IBQ holdings on or about January 1 of the following calendar year, based on current ownership records, except that no person will be allocated an amount of QS or IBQ that would put that person over an accumulation limit.

    (C) Abandonment of QS. QS permit owners that are over the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings may voluntarily abandon QS if they notify NMFS in writing by the applicable deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. The written abandonment request must include the following information: QS permit number, IFQ species, and the QS percentage to be abandoned. Either the QS permit owner or an authorized representative of the QS permit owner must sign the request. QS permit owners choosing to utilize the abandonment option will permanently relinquish to NMFS any right to the abandoned QS, and the QS will be redistributed as described under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No compensation will be due for any abandoned shares.

    (D) Revocation. NMFS will revoke QS from any QS permit owner who exceeds an accumulation limit after the divestiture deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. NMFS will follow the revocation approach summarized in the following table and explained under paragraphs (d)(4)(v)(E) through (G) of this section:

    If, after the divestiture deadline, a QS permit owner exceeds Then An individual species control limit in one QS permit NMFS will revoke excess QS at the species level. An individual species control limit across multiple QS permits NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount the QS percentage from each permit contributes to the total QS percentage owned. The control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount of the aggregate overage divided by the aggregate total owned.

    (E) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ from one QS permit. In cases where a person has not divested to the control limits for individual species in one QS permit by the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section, NMFS will revoke excess QS at the species level in order to get that person to the limits. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS following the process specified in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No compensation will be due for any revoked shares.

    (F) Revocation of excess QS or IBQ from multiple QS permits. In cases where a person has not divested to the control limits for individual species across QS permits by the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section, NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount the QS percentage from each permit contributes to the total QS percentage owned. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS following the process specified in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No compensation will be due for any revoked shares.

    (G) Revocation of QS in excess of the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings. In cases where a QS permit owner has not divested to the control limit for aggregate nonwhiting QS holdings by the deadline specified under paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section, NMFS will revoke QS at the species level in proportion to the amount of the aggregate overage divided by the aggregate total owned. NMFS will redistribute the revoked QS following the process in paragraph (d)(4)(v)(A) or (B) of this section. No compensation will be due for any revoked shares.

    (9) Reallocation of widow rockfish QS. (i) Additional definitions. The following definitions are applicable to paragraph (d)(9) of this section and apply only to terms used for the purposes of reallocation of widow rockfish QS:

    (A) Nonwhiting trip means a fishing trip where less than 50 percent by weight of all fish reported on the state landing receipt is whiting.

    (B) PacFIN means the Pacific Fisheries Information Network of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

    (C) Relative history means the landings history of a limited entry trawl permit for a species, year, and area subdivision, divided by the total fleet history of the sector for that species, year, and area subdivision, as appropriate.

    (D) Whiting trip means a fishing trip where greater than or equal to 50 percent by weight of all fish reported on the state landing receipt is whiting.

    (ii) Eligibility criteria for receiving reallocated widow rockfish QS. Only the owner of an original QS permit (non-shoreside processor) to which QS was initially allocated in 2011 is eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS based on the history of the limited entry trawl permit(s) that accrued to that QS permit, regardless of current limited entry permit ownership. For those new QS permits to which widow rockfish was administratively transferred by NMFS under U.S. court order, NMFS will reallocate widow rockfish QS directly to the new QS permit. Any limited entry trawl permit owners who did not submit an initial application for a QS permit will not be eligible to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS.

    (iii) Steps for widow rockfish QS reallocation formula. The widow rockfish QS reallocation formula is applied in the following steps:

    (A) First, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will determine a preliminary QS allocation for nonwhiting trips.

    (B) Second, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will determine a preliminary QS allocation for whiting trips.

    (C) Third, for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will combine the amounts resulting from paragraphs (d)(9)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.

    (D) Fourth, NMFS will reduce the total widow rockfish QS reallocated to QS permit owners by 10 percent as a set aside for AMP.

    (iv) Reallocation formula for specific widow rockfish QS amounts—(A) Reallocation formula rules. The following rules will be applied to data for the purpose of calculating the initial reallocation of widow rockfish QS:

    (1) Limited entry trawl permits will be assigned catch history or relative history based on the landing history of the vessel(s) associated with the permit at the time the landings were made.

    (2) The relevant PacFIN dataset includes species compositions based on port sampled data and applied to data at the vessel level.

    (3) Only landings of widow rockfish that were caught in the exclusive economic zone or adjacent state waters off Washington, Oregon, and California will be used for calculating the reallocation of widow rockfish QS.

    (4) History from limited entry trawl permits that have been combined with a limited entry trawl permit that qualified for a C/P endorsement and which has shorebased permit history will not be included in the preliminary QS and IBQ allocation formula, other than in the determination of fleet history used in the calculation of relative history for limited entry trawl permits that do not have a C/P endorsement.

    (5) History of illegal landings and landings made under nonwhiting EFPs that are in excess of the cumulative limits in place for the non-EFP fishery will not count toward the allocation of QS.

    (6) The limited entry trawl permit's landings history includes the landings history of limited entry trawl permits that have been previously combined with that limited entry trawl permit.

    (7) If two or more limited entry trawl permits have been simultaneously registered to the same vessel, NMFS will split the landing history evenly between all such limited entry trawl permits during the time they were simultaneously registered to the vessel.

    (8) Unless otherwise noted, the calculation for the reallocation of widow rockfish QS under paragraph (d)(9) will be based on state landing receipts (fish tickets) as recorded in the relevant PacFIN dataset on July 27, 2016.

    (9) For limited entry trawl permits, landings under provisional “A” permits that did not become “A” permits and “B” permits will not count toward the reallocation of widow rockfish QS, other than in the determination of fleet history used in the calculation of relative history for permits that do not have a C/P endorsement.

    (10) For limited entry trawl permits, NMFS will calculate the reallocation of widow rockfish QS separately based on whiting trips and nonwhiting trips, and will weigh each calculation according to a split between whiting trips and nonwhiting trips of 10.833 percent for whiting trips and 89.167 percent for nonwhiting trips, which is a one-time proportion necessary for the reallocation formula.

    (B) Preliminary widow rockfish QS reallocation for nonwhiting trips. The preliminary reallocation process in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A) of this section follows a two-step process, one to allocate a pool of QS equally among all eligible limited entry permits and the other to allocate the remainder of the preliminary QS based on limited entry trawl permit history. Through these two processes, preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will be allocated. In later steps, this will be adjusted and reduced as indicated in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to determine the QS allocation.

    (1) QS to be allocated equally. The pool of QS for equal allocation will be determined using the nonwhiting trip landings history from Federal limited entry groundfish permits that were retired through the Federal buyback program (i.e., buyback program) (68 FR 42613, July 18, 2003). The nonwhiting trip QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be the buyback permit history as a percent of the total fleet history for the 1994 to 2003 nonwhiting trip reallocation period. The calculation will be based on total absolute pounds with no dropped years and no other adjustments. The QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be divided equally among all qualifying limited entry permits.

    (2) QS to be allocated based on each permit's history. The pool of QS for allocation based on limited entry trawl permit nonwhiting trip history will be the QS remaining after subtracting out the QS allocated equally. This pool will be allocated to each qualifying limited entry trawl permit based on the permit's relative nonwhiting trip history from 1994 through 2002, dropping the three lowest years. For each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will calculate relative history using the following methodology. First, NMFS will sum the permit's widow rockfish landings on nonwhiting trips for each year in the reallocation period. Second, NMFS will divide each permit's annual sum by the shoreside limited entry trawl fleet's annual sum. NMFS will then calculate a total relative history for each permit by adding all relative histories for the permit together and subtracting the three years with the lowest relative history for the permit. The result for each permit will be divided by the aggregate sum of all total relative histories of all qualifying limited entry trawl permits. NMFS will then multiply the result from this calculation by the amount of QS in the pool to be allocated based on each permit's history.

    (C) Preliminary widow rockfish QS reallocation for whiting trips. The preliminary reallocation process in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(B) of this section follows a two-step process, one to allocate a pool of QS equally among all eligible limited entry permits and the other to allocate the remainder of the preliminary QS based on permit history. Through these two processes, preliminary QS totaling 100 percent will be allocated. In later steps, this will be adjusted and reduced as indicated in paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(C) and (D) to determine the QS allocation.

    (1) QS to be allocated equally. The pool of QS for equal allocation will be determined using whiting trip landings history from Federal limited entry groundfish permits that were retired through the Federal buyback program (i.e., buyback program) (68 FR 42613, July 18, 2003). The whiting trip QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be the buyback permit history as a percent of the total fleet history for the 1994 to 2003 whiting trip reallocation period. The calculation will be based on total absolute pounds with no dropped years and no other adjustments. The QS pool associated with the buyback permits will be divided equally among all qualifying limited entry permits.

    (2) QS to be allocated based on each permit's history. The pool of QS for allocation based on each limited entry trawl permit's whiting trip history will be the QS remaining after subtracting out the QS allocated equally. Widow rockfish QS for this pool will be allocated pro-rata based on each limited entry trawl permit's whiting QS from whiting trips that was established in 2010 and used to allocate the whiting trip portion of whiting QS at the time of initial implementation in 2011. Pro-rata means a percent that is equal to the percent of whiting QS from whiting trips.

    (D) QS from limited entry permits calculated separately for nonwhiting trips and whiting trips. NMFS will calculate the portion of widow QS a limited entry trawl permit receives based on nonwhiting trips and whiting trips separately, and will weight each preliminary QS in proportion to the one-time reallocation percentage between whiting trips and nonwhiting trips of 10.833 percent and 89.167 percent, respectively.

    (1) Nonwhiting trips. To determine the amount of widow QS for nonwhiting trips for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will multiply the preliminary QS for the permit from paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(A) of this section by the one-time reallocation percentage of 89.167 percent for nonwhiting trips.

    (2) Whiting trips. To determine the amount of widow QS for whiting trips for each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will multiply the preliminary QS for the permit from paragraph (d)(9)(iii)(B) of this section by the one-time reallocation percentage of 10.833 percent for whiting trips.

    (E) QS for each limited entry trawl permit. For each limited entry trawl permit, NMFS will add the results for the permit from paragraphs (d)(9)(iv)(D)(1) and (D)(2) of this section in order to determine the total QS widow for that permit.

    (F) Adjustment for AMP set-aside. NMFS will reduce the widow QS reallocated to each permit owner by a proportional amount that is equivalent to a reduction of 10 percent across all widow reallocation recipients' holdings as a set aside for AMP.

    (v) Widow rockfish QS reallocation application. Persons may apply for issuance of reallocated widow rockfish QS by completing and submitting a prequalified application. A “prequalified application” is a partially pre-filled application where NMFS has preliminarily determined the landings history for each limited entry trawl permit that qualifies the applicant for a reallocation of widow QS. The application package will include a prequalified application with landings history. The completed application must be either postmarked or hand-delivered to NMFS within normal business hours no later than December 26, 2017. If an applicant fails to submit a completed application by the deadline date, they forgo the opportunity to receive reallocated widow rockfish QS and their percentage will be redistributed to other QS permit owners who submitted complete widow rockfish reallocation applications in proportion to their reallocated widow QS amount.

    (vi) Corrections to the application. If an applicant does not accept NMFS's calculation in the prequalified application either in part or whole, the applicant must identify in writing to NMFS which parts the applicant believes to be inaccurate, and must provide specific credible information to substantiate any requested corrections. The completed application and specific credible information must be provided to NMFS in writing by the application deadline. Written communication must either be post-marked or hand-delivered to NMFS within normal business hours no later than December 26, 2017. Requests for corrections may only be granted for the following reasons:

    (A) Errors in NMFS's use or application of data, including:

    (1) Errors in NMFS's use or application of landings data from PacFIN;

    (2) Errors in NMFS's application of the reallocation formula; and

    (3) Errors in identification of the QS permit owner, permit combinations, or vessel registration as listed in NMFS permit database.

    (B) [Reserved]

    (vii) Submission of the application and application deadline—(A) Submission of the application. Submission of the complete, certified application includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    (1) The applicant is required to sign and date the application and declare that the contents are true, correct and complete.

    (2) The applicant must certify that they qualify to own reallocated widow rockfish QS.

    (3) The applicant must indicate they accept NMFS's calculation of reallocated widow rockfish QS provided in the prequalified application, or provide a written statement and credible information if they do not accept NMFS's calculation.

    (4) NMFS may request additional information of the applicant as necessary to make an IAD on reallocated widow rockfish QS.

    (B) Application deadline. A complete, certified application must be either postmarked or hand-delivered within normal business hours to NMFS, West Coast Region, Permits Office, Bldg. 1, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115, no later than December 26, 2017. NMFS will not accept or review any applications received or postmarked after the application deadline. There are no hardship exemptions for this deadline.

    (viii) Initial Administrative Determination (IAD). NMFS will issue an IAD for all complete, certified applications received by the application deadline date. If NMFS approves an application for reallocated widow rockfish QS, the IAD will say so, and the applicant will receive a 2018 QS permit specifying the reallocated amount of widow rockfish QS the applicant has qualified for. If NMFS disapproves or partially disapproves an application, the IAD will provide the reasons. As part of the IAD, NMFS will indicate to the best of its knowledge whether the QS permit owner qualifies for QS or IBQ in amounts that exceed the accumulation limits and are subject to divestiture provisions given at paragraph (d)(4)(v) of this section. If the applicant does not appeal the IAD within 60 calendar days of the date on the IAD, the IAD becomes the final decision of the Regional Administrator acting on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce.

    (ix) Appeals. For reallocated widow rockfish QS issued under this section, the appeals process and timelines are specified at § 660.25(g), subpart C. For the reallocation of widow rockfish QS, the bases for appeal are described in paragraph (d)(9)(vi) of this section. Items not subject to appeal include, but are not limited to, the accuracy of permit landings data in the relevant PacFIN dataset on July 27, 2016.

    (e) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) Vessel limits. For each IFQ species or species group specified in this paragraph, vessel accounts may not have QP or IBQ pounds in excess of the QP vessel limit (annual limit) in any year, and, for species covered by unused QP vessel limits (daily limit), may not have QP or IBQ pounds in excess of the unused QP vessel limit at any time. The QP vessel limit (annual limit) is calculated as all QPs transferred in minus all QPs transferred out of the vessel account. The unused QP vessel limits (daily limit) is calculated as unused available QPs plus any pending outgoing transfer of QPs.

    Species category QP vessel
  • limit
  • (annual limit)
  • (in percent)
  • Unused QP
  • vessel limit
  • (daily limit)
  • (in percent)
  • Arrowtooth flounder 20 Bocaccio S. of 40°10′ N. lat. 15.4 13.2 Canary rockfish 10 4.4 Chilipepper S. of 40°10′ N. lat. 15 Cowcod S. of 40°10′ N. lat. 17.7 17.7 Darkblotched rockfish 6.8 4.5 Dover sole 3.9 English sole 7.5 Lingcod: N. of 40°10′ N. lat. 5.3 S. of 40°10′ N. lat. 13.3 Longspine thornyhead: N. of 34°27′ N. lat. 9 Minor rockfish complex N. of 40°10′ N. lat.: Shelf species 7.5 Slope species 7.5 Minor rockfish complex S. of 40°10′ N. lat.: Shelf species 13.5 Slope species 9 Other flatfish complex 15 Pacific cod 20 Pacific halibut (IBQ) N. of 40°10′ N. lat. 14.4 5.4 Pacific ocean perch N. of 40°10′ N. lat. 6 4 Pacific whiting (shoreside) 15 Petrale sole 4.5 Sablefish: N. of 36° N. lat. (Monterey north) 4.5 S. of 36° N. lat. (Conception area) 15 Shortspine thornyhead: N. of 34°27′ N. lat. 9 S. of 34°27′ N. lat. 9 Splitnose rockfish S. of 40°10′ N. lat. 15 Starry flounder 20 Widow rockfish 8.5 Yelloweye rockfish 11.4 5.7 Yellowtail rockfish N. of 40°10′ N. lat. 7.5 Nonwhiting groundfish species 3.2
    [FR Doc. 2017-25349 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 225 Friday, November 24, 2017 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 61 [NRC-2011-0012] RIN 3150-AI92 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Regulatory analysis; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 17, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested public comment on the draft regulatory analysis, “Draft Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal.” The public comment period closed on November 16, 2017. The NRC has decided to extend the public comment period until December 18, 2017, to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the Federal Register document published on October 17, 2017 (82 FR 48283), is reopened and now closes on December 18, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0012. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected]. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Email comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301-415-1677.

    Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301-415-1101.

    Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.

    Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gregory R. Trussell, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6445, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0012 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-2011-0012.

    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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0012 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 posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

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

    II. Discussion

    On October 17, 2017 (82 FR 48283), the NRC requested public comment on the draft regulatory analysis, “Draft Regulatory Analysis for Final Rule: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal.” The purpose of the draft regulatory analysis is to support development of the new supplemental proposed rule as directed by the Commission in the staff requirements memorandum to SECY-16-0106 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17251B147), dated September 8, 2017. The NRC staff is seeking comment on how to improve the approach/methodology and actual cost data currently used in the draft final rule regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML16189A050) to provide more accurate cost and benefit data in the final regulatory analysis.

    The NRC received several requests from public stakeholders to extend the comment period for the draft regulatory analysis. Public stakeholders noted in their requests that more time is needed to allow for the gathering of actual cost data. The comment period is being reopened and now closes on December 18, 2017.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of November, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Patricia Holahan, Director, Division of Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25341 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Parts 211 and 238 [Docket No. R-1569] RIN 7100-AE82 Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 17, 2017, the Board published in the Federal Register a proposed new rating system for its supervision of large financial institutions. To facilitate effective public comment on the proposal, the Board previously extended the comment period from October 16, 2017, to November 30, 2017. The Board has determined that a further extension of the comment period until February 15, 2018, is appropriate. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule published August 17, 2017, 82 FR 39049, are extended and must be received on or before February 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the proposal. Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Vaishali Sack, Manager, (202) 452-5221, April Snyder, Manager, (202) 452-3099, Bill Charwat, Senior Project Manager, (202) 452-3006, Division of Supervision and Regulation, Scott Tkacz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2744, or Christopher Callanan, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3594, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 17, 2017, the Board published in the Federal Register a proposed new rating system for its supervision of large financial institutions.1 The proposed “Large Financial Institution Rating System” is closely aligned with the Federal Reserve's new supervisory program for large financial institutions. The proposed rating system would apply to all bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; all non-insurance, non-commercial savings and loan holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more; and U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign banking organizations established pursuant to the Federal Reserve's Regulation YY. The proposed rating system includes a new rating scale under which component ratings would be assigned for capital planning and positions, liquidity risk management and positions, and governance and controls. The Federal Reserve proposes to assign initial ratings under the new rating system during 2018. The Federal Reserve is also seeking comment on proposed revisions to existing provisions in Regulations K and LL so they would remain consistent with certain features of the proposed rating system.

    1See “Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL,” 82 FR 39049 (August 17, 2017).

    The proposal stated that the public comment period would close on October 16, 2017, which the Board previously extended to November 30, 2017.2

    2See “Large Financial Institution Rating System; Regulations K and LL,” 82 FR 47164 (October 11, 2017).

    An additional extension of the comment period will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the ratings framework and related supervisory expectations as a whole. Therefore, the Board is extending the end of the comment period for the proposal from November 30, 2017, to February 15, 2018.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, November 17, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25371 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Parts 61 and 121 [Docket No.: FAA-2017-1106 Notice No. 17-02] RIN 2120-AL03 Recognition of Pilot in Command Experience in the Military and in Part 121 Air Carrier Operations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would allow pilots who obtained pilot in command (PIC) experience prior to July 31, 2013, in certain air carrier operations, to count that time towards the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience required to serve as a PIC in air carrier operations today. This would correct an inadvertent omission in the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule that established the air carrier experience requirement. It would also broaden the existing 500-hour credit military pilots of fixed-wing airplanes can use towards the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience by permitting pilots of select powered-lift aircraft operations to receive credit. This NPRM would also allow credit for select military time in a powered-lift aircraft flown in horizontal flight towards the 250 hours of airplane time as PIC, or second in command (SIC) performing the duties of PIC, required for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate.

    DATES:

    Send comments on or before January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1106 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical questions concernig this action, contact Barbara Adams, Air Transportation Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation, that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate. This rulemaking would revise the qualifications required to apply for an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate and the qualifications required to serve as pilot in command (PIC) in part 121 operations. For these reasons, this rulemaking is within the scope of the FAA's authority.

    Table of Contents I. Overview of Proposed Rule II. Discussion of Proposal A. ATP Aeronautical Experience Requirements (§ 61.159) B. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air Carrier Operations To Serve as Pilot in Command in Part 121 Operations (§ 121.436) 1. Part 121 Experience Prior to July 31, 2013 2. Military Time 3. Miscellaneous Amendments III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination C. International Trade Impact Assessment D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment E. Paperwork Reduction Act IV. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation V. Additional Information A. Comments Invited B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Frequently Used in This Document ATP Airline Transport Pilot PIC Pilot in Command SIC Second in Command I. Overview of Proposed Rule

    This rulemaking would provide relief to military pilots of powered-lift aircraft seeking to obtain an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate with an airplane category rating. As discussed in section II.A. of this preamble, the FAA is proposing to allow military pilots to credit flight time in a powered-lift aircraft operated in horizontal flight towards the 250-hour flight time requirement in an airplane in § 61.159(a)(5). This proposed change would assist military pilots of powered-lift aircraft in qualifying for an ATP certificate in the airplane category.

    This rulemaking would also include changes to the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement to serve as PIC in part 121 operations. As discussed in section II.B., this rulemaking would allow pilots with part 121 PIC experience acquired prior to July 31, 2013, to count that time towards the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience required to serve as a PIC in part 121 today. Additionally, this rulemaking would broaden the existing 500-hour credit military pilots of fixed-wing airplanes can take towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement. The proposed change to the existing 500-hour credit would accommodate pilots of multiengine, turbine-powered, powered-lift aircraft in operations where more than one pilot is required.

    Because this rulemaking proposes to amend two disparate regulations, the FAA has provided the necessary background information in the relevant sections of the Discussion of the Proposal.

    II. Discussion of the Proposal A. ATP Aeronautical Experience Requirements (§ 61.159)

    Since 1969, the FAA has required an applicant for an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating to have at least 1,500 hours of flight time as a pilot. (34 FR 17162). This requirement is found in § 61.159(a). As part of the 1,500 hours of total time required, § 61.159(a)(5) requires the applicant to have at least 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as PIC, or as second in command (SIC) performing the duties of PIC while under the supervision of a PIC, or any combination thereof.1 The 250 hours of airplane time must include at least 100 hours of cross-country time and 25 hours of night time.2

    1See Memorandum to John Duncan from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Apr. 13, 2012)(interpreting the provision of 14 CFR 61.159(a)(4) (2012), which at the time stated “250 hours of flight time in an airplane as pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command”).

    2 14 CFR 61.159(a)(5)(i) and (ii).

    Over the years, military pilots have asked the FAA whether they may credit their flight time in powered-lift aircraft (when operated in horizontal flight) towards the aeronautical experience requirement of § 61.159(a)(5) for an airplane category rating. Section 61.159(a)(5) requires the 250 hours of flight time as PIC (or SIC performing the duties of PIC while under the supervision of a PIC) to be performed in the category of aircraft for which the rating is sought. In 1997, the FAA established a separate category of aircraft for powered-lift aircraft and adopted § 61.163(a),3 which prescribes the aeronautical experience required for a powered-lift category rating.4 Because the FAA established powered-lift as a separate category of aircraft rather than a class or type of airplane, the regulations currently preclude a pilot from crediting flight time in a powered-lift category aircraft towards the airplane-specific aeronautical experience required for an airplane category rating.5

    3 When the FAA established the powered-lift category rating, some commenters suggested simply requiring pilots to hold both an airplane category and a rotorcraft category rating to operate powered-lift aircraft. Others suggested that the FAA establish type ratings within an existing category of aircraft for powered-lift aircraft. The FAA chose instead to set powered-lift aircraft apart as a separate category from both airplane and rotorcraft. 62 FR 16220 (Apr. 4, 1997).

    4 Section 61.163(a)(3) requires a person who is applying for an ATP certificate with a powered-lift category rating to obtain the same 250 hours of flight time in a powered-lift aircraft.

    5 In July 2013, the FAA published a final rule that permits military pilots to obtain an ATP certificate with 750 hours total time as a pilot as compared with the 1,500 hours generally required to apply for the certificate. 78 FR 42324 (July 15, 2013).

    In March 2015, the FAA received a petition for exemption to permit a military pilot to credit time in a powered-lift aircraft toward the airplane flight time requirements of § 61.159(a)(5).6 An additional petition was received in January 2016 seeking the same relief.7 The FAA has received favorable public comment to the initial petition for exemption from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) in a letter dated September 6, 2016.8 ALPA supported the petitioner's request for relief from § 61.159(a)(5) by citing the August 11, 1995, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed to create the powered-lift category. (60 FR 41160). ALPA notes that in the preamble to the NPRM, the FAA acknowledged that the requirements for an ATP certificate for powered-lift aircraft would be similar to the airplane requirements. ALPA also pointed to a legal interpretation that was issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel for the Regulations Division on January 11, 2016,9 in which the FAA acknowledged that powered-lift aircraft resemble airplanes in many respects and that they may fly at an airspeed that is consistent with an airplane.

    6www.regulations.gov; Docket. No. FAA-2015-0695.

    7www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FAA-2016-2486.

    8www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FAA-2015-0695.

    9 Legal Interpretation to Major Daniel Fiust from Lorelei Peter, Acting Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (January 11, 2016).

    The FAA believes that any relief to § 61.159(a)(5) is most appropriately achieved through notice and comment rulemaking. The FAA notes that a rulemaking change to § 61.159(a)(5) enables the FAA to more generally accommodate military pilots of powered-lift aircraft. Consistent with the types of military pilots who may apply for pilot certificates and ratings under § 61.73, the FAA's proposal accommodates military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces, and military pilots in the Armed Forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation provided those foreign military pilots are assigned to pilot duties in the U.S. Armed Forces for purposes other than receiving flight training. In order to credit flight time in accordance with proposed § 61.159(a)(5)(ii), U.S. military pilots and former U.S. military pilots would be required to provide the documentation in accordance with § 61.73(b)(1), and military pilots in the Armed Forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation would be required to provide the documentation in accordance with § 61.73(c)(1).10

    10 To facilitate readability, the FAA is hereinafter using the term “military pilots” to refer to military pilots and former military pilots in the U.S. Armed Forces, and military pilots in the Armed Forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

    The FAA recognizes that powered-lift aircraft are predominantly operated in the horizontal flight regime. When operated in this mode, the FAA finds that powered-lift aircraft are, for all practical purposes, operated as airplanes. As such, the FAA is proposing to amend § 61.159(a)(5) to allow military pilots to credit flight time in powered-lift aircraft operated in horizontal flight towards the 250-hour airplane flight time requirement. Accordingly, a military pilot would be allowed to credit flight time obtained in a powered-lift aircraft as PIC (or as SIC performing the duties of PIC while under the supervision of a PIC) towards the aeronautical experience requirement of § 61.159(a)(5). The proposed allowance to credit military time in powered-lift aircraft towards the 250 hours of airplane time would also extend to the cross country time and night time requirements of this paragraph. The FAA proposes to amend current § 61.159(a)(5) by moving current paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (a)(5)(ii), which contain the cross country time and night time requirements, to new paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(A) and (a)(5)(i)(B) and by adding new § 61.159(a)(5)(ii), which would contain the proposed allowance for military pilots of powered-lift aircraft.

    This proposed change would provide relief to military pilots of powered-lift aircraft who are seeking to obtain an ATP certificate with an airplane category rating. The FAA notes that it is not proposing a similar credit towards the aeronautical experience required for an ATP certificate with a rotorcraft rating.

    Under proposed § 61.159(a)(5)(ii), a military pilot would be allowed to credit flight time in a powered-lift aircraft as PIC or as SIC performing the duties of PIC (i.e., manipulating the flight controls or serving as the flying pilot) while under the supervision of a PIC. This proposed provision would be consistent with current § 61.159(a)(5) and with the Memorandum to the Air Transportation Division from the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations dated April 13, 2012 (Memorandum).11 Current § 61.159(a)(5) states “250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof[.]” 12 The Memorandum explains that this provision should not be confused with § 61.51(e)(1)(iv), which permits a pilot who holds a commercial pilot certificate or ATP certificate that is appropriate to the category and class of aircraft to log PIC time while performing “the duties of pilot in command under the supervision of a qualified pilot in command” if, among other things, the pilot is undergoing an approved PIC training program. While these two provisions contain similar language regarding the performance of PIC duties under the supervision of a PIC, they are distinct provisions.

    11 Memorandum to John Duncan, Manager, Air Transportation Division, from Rebecca MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Apr. 13, 2012).

    12 As stated in the Memorandum, this provision was first introduced in the 1952 Civil Air Regulations. CAR 21.16(a) stated that an applicant for an ATP rating shall have “at least 250 hours of flight time composed of time as pilot in command, or time as copilot actually performing the duties and functions of a pilot-in-command under the surveillance of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof.” The Civil Aeronautics Board explained that “the experience and training gained by copilots on air carrier aircraft together with flight training experience in performing the duties and functions of an aircraft commander in transport type aircraft is equivalent to or greater than the present requirement for pilot-in-command experience which is often attained in small aircraft under conditions entirely unrelated to air carrier operations.” CAB Amendment No. 21-10, Aeronautical Experience Requirement for Airline Transport Pilot Rating.

    As evidenced by the Memorandum, the SIC time that may be credited towards the aeronautical experience requirement of § 61.159(a)(5) is not required to meet the PIC logging requirements of § 61.51(e)(1)(iv). Accordingly, a military pilot may count the SIC time during which he or she performs the duties of PIC under the supervision of a PIC towards the 250 hour flight time requirement of § 61.159(a)(5) even if he or she cannot log that SIC time as PIC time in accordance with § 61.51(e)(1)(iv). The SIC time used to meet § 61.159(a)(5) would instead be logged as SIC time in accordance with § 61.51(f). As such, the SIC must be a required flightcrew member by aircraft certification or the regulation under which the flight is conducted.

    The FAA is not proposing to limit the amount of powered-lift time a pilot may credit towards the 250 hours of airplane time other than stating the time credited must have been acquired in horizontal flight. The FAA does not see a safety risk in allowing this credit. A military pilot receives training in an airplane prior to transitioning to a powered-lift aircraft and typically is able to obtain a commercial pilot certificate in the airplane category based on his or her military experience.13 Furthermore, in order to be eligible for the ATP certificate with airplane category and multiengine class ratings, a military pilot would still be required to meet the other aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.159, including the requirement to obtain at least 50 hours of flight time in a multiengine land airplane. The FAA also notes that while using the military documentation in § 61.73 to credit the time, the military pilot would still be required to complete the training required by § 61.156 for a multiengine airplane ATP certificate, pass the single-engine or multiengine ATP knowledge test, as appropriate, and pass a practical test/evaluation event in the appropriate class of airplane for the desired ATP certificate.14

    13 14 CFR 61.73.

    14 Section 61.159(a)(3) requires at least 50 hours of flight time in the class of airplane for the rating sought.

    The FAA notes that it is not proposing to make any changes to the ATP flight time requirements. This rulemaking would not reduce the amount of total time as a pilot required for an ATP certificate. Nor would it reduce the amount of total time as a pilot required for an ATP certificate with restricted privileges. Furthermore, the FAA is not proposing to reduce the categorical minimum flight times (e.g., instrument time, night time, etc.) required for an ATP certificate.

    B. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air Carrier Operations To Serve as Pilot in Command in Part 121 Operations (§ 121.436)

    The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-216, “the Act”), directed the FAA to conduct rulemaking to improve the qualifications and training for pilots serving in air carrier operations. In support of the Act, the FAA published the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule on July 15, 2013. (78 FR 42324). The rule created new certification and qualification requirements for pilots in air carrier operations, including § 121.436. Section 121.436 addresses pilot qualifications, certificates, and experience requirements to act as a PIC of an aircraft (or SIC of an aircraft in a flag or supplemental operation that requires three or more pilots).

    Specifically, § 121.436(a)(3) requires pilots serving as PIC in part 121 operations to have, in addition to an ATP certificate and an aircraft type rating, at least 1,000 hours of air carrier experience. The air carrier experience may be a combination of time serving as SIC in operations under part 121, or serving as PIC in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1). Section 121.436(c) allows military pilots to credit towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement 500 hours of military time obtained as PIC of a multiengine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot. As discussed in the sections below, the FAA is proposing to amend these requirements to provide relief to pilots who obtained part 121 PIC experience prior to July 31, 2013, and to military pilots of powered-lift aircraft.

    1. Part 121 Experience Prior to July 31, 2013

    As previously stated, § 121.436(a)(3) requires a pilot to have 1,000 hours of air carrier experience prior to serving as PIC in part 121 operations.15 This section does not apply to pilots employed as PIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013.

    15 The FAA notes that the introductory paragraph in § 121.436(a) prohibits a pilot from serving as PIC in an aircraft in part 121 operations and also prohibits a certificate holder from using a pilot as PIC in part 121 operations unless the pilot meets all of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(l) through (3). Accordingly, both pilots and certificate holders are responsible for compliance with § 121.436(a).

    Under current § 121.436, a pilot may not use any flight time obtained as PIC in part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013, to satisfy the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement of § 121.436(a)(3). As evidenced by a legal interpretation issued by the Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations on March 7, 2014,16 experience as a PIC in part 121 operations is addressed by excepting those pilots employed as PIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, from § 121.436(a)(3).

    16 Legal Interpretation to Mr. Zachary Kelley from Mark W. Bury, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations (Mar. 7, 2014).

    Since the adoption of § 121.436, the FAA has granted petitions for exemption from § 121.436(a)(3) to pilots who had part 121 PIC experience prior to July 31, 2013, but were not employed as a part 121 PIC on July 31, 2013.17 These exemptions allow pilots to count their previously accrued part 121 PIC time towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement of § 121.436(a)(3). This allows them to serve as PIC in part 121 operations today and permits the part 119 certificate holder to employ them as PIC.

    17 Exemption No. 13993 (Docket No. FAA-2014-0658); Exemption No. 15473 (FAA-2016-1287); and Exemption No. 17177 (FAA-2016-9249).

    The FAA is proposing to add new § 121.436(d) to allow a pilot's experience gained as PIC in part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013, to count towards the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience required by § 121.436(a)(3). Proposed § 121.436(d) would alleviate the need for pilots to obtain exemptions from current § 121.436(a)(3) in order to receive credit for part 121 PIC experience obtained prior to July 31, 2013. For the reasons discussed below, the FAA finds that proposed § 121.436(d) is consistent with the intent of § 121.436(a)(3).

    A PIC in part 121 air carrier operations is expected to possess leadership and command abilities, including aeronautical decision making and the sound judgment necessary to exercise operational control of the flight. The intent of the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement in § 121.436(a)(3) is to prevent two pilots in part 121 operations with little or no air carrier experience from being paired together as a flightcrew in line operations. In addition, the intent of this rule is to ensure that pilots obtain at least one full year of relevant air carrier operational experience before assuming the authority and responsibility of a PIC in operations conducted in part 121 operations (78 FR 42355).

    In the preamble to the final rule that adopted § 121.436(a)(3), the FAA determined that flight time acquired as a PIC in operations under §§ 91.1053(a)(2)(i) and 135.243(a)(1), and flight time acquired as an SIC in part 121 operations should count towards the 1,000 hour air carrier experience requirement. The FAA explained that operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) or § 135.243(a)(1) require an ATP certificate, are multicrew operations, and generally use turbine aircraft and therefore are the most applicable to part 121 operations. (78 FR 42356).

    Consistent with this rationale, the FAA finds that a pilot who has obtained PIC experience in part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013, has exercised the privileges of an ATP certificate in a position where that certificate is required by rule in the United States, and the operation was in a turbine-powered aircraft in a multicrew environment. Therefore, that time served as a part 121 PIC should count towards the air carrier experience requirement. The FAA notes that all PICs in part 121 operations complete the air carrier's FAA-approved training and qualification program prior to serving as PIC. This training and qualification ensures every PIC is proficient in the air carrier's operations including, but not limited to, standard operating procedures, environments, kinds of operations, operational authorizations and the operation of its aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA finds that allowing PIC time acquired in part 121 operations prior to July 31, 2013, to count towards the air carrier experience requirement would not adversely impact safety; it would support the FAA's goal of ensuring that a pilot possesses sufficient experience to assume the authority and responsibility of PIC in part 121 operations.

    2. Military Time

    In the Pilot Certification and Qualification Requirements for Air Carrier Operations final rule, the FAA recognized that many pilots in the course of their military careers will obtain significant multicrew experience as PICs of transport category aircraft. The FAA therefore adopted § 121.436(c) to allow 500 hours of military flight time accrued as PIC of a multiengine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an operation requiring more than one pilot to be credited towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement.

    Under current § 121.436(c), the creditable military flight time is limited to PIC time acquired in fixed-wing airplanes. Since the adoption of § 121.436(c), the FAA has received several inquiries and a petition for exemption from a military pilot seeking to credit military flight time as PIC in multicrew, turbine-powered, powered-lift aircraft towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement. The petitioner explained that “[o]perational complexity is experienced routinely in the V-22, often with passengers of up to twenty-four. In fact, operations in the V-22 are some of the most complex operations pilots will experience due to its flexibility, range and operating altitudes. Additionally, the V-22 is a multi-crew, multi-engine, turbine aircraft.” 18 The petitioner added that the majority of flight time in the V-22 is in “ “Airplane Mode” meaning operations are nearly the same as turbine airplane flight time.” The FAA believes that any relief to § 121.436(c) is most appropriately achieved through notice and comment rulemaking. The FAA notes that a rulemaking change to § 121.436(c) enables the FAA to more generally accommodate military pilots of multiengine, turbine-powered, powered-lift aircraft.

    18www.regulations.gov; Docket No. FAA-2016-8875.

    The FAA has reconsidered the military flight time that may be credited towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement. As previously discussed in this preamble, the intent of the 1,000-hour air carrier experience provision is to prevent two pilots in part 121 operations with little or no air carrier experience from being paired together as a flightcrew in line operations and to ensure that pilots obtain at least one full year of relevant air carrier operational experience before assuming the authority and responsibility of a PIC in operations conducted in part 121 operations. Further, a PIC in part 121 air carrier operations is expected to possess leadership and command abilities, including aeronautical decision making and the sound judgment necessary to exercise operational control of the flight. (78 FR42356).

    Upon further reconsideration, the FAA is proposing to amend § 121.436(c) to also allow military flight time accrued as PIC of a multiengine, turbine-powered powered-lift aircraft to be credited towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement. Consistent with the existing requirement, the operation must also require more than one pilot. The FAA finds that military flight time obtained as PIC of transport category powered-lift aircraft provides significant multicrew experience substantially similar to that obtained in transport category fixed-wing airplanes. The FAA also finds that allowing a military-trained PIC of a multiengine, turbine-powered, powered-lift aircraft to credit up to 500 hours towards the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement is consistent with the intent of § 121.436. The FAA has previously recognized the quality of the military training and appreciates the complexity of those kinds of transport-like operations. In addition, the FAA has acknowledged that powered-lift aircraft are predominantly operated in the horizontal flight regime, much like an airplane. The FAA maintains, however, that while there is value in this experience, these pilots operate in a unique system that is different from a part 121 air carrier environment and military pilots would benefit from spending some time serving as a required crewmember in a civilian air carrier operation before upgrading to PIC. This time would prepare them for operating in compliance with the U.S. regulations that govern civil aviation, the air carrier's particular operating specifications, and the airplane's operations manual.

    3. Miscellaneous Amendments

    Current § 121.436(a)(3) excepts from the requirements of paragraph (a)(3) pilots who “are” employed as PIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013. Because the date referenced in paragraph (a)(3) has since passed, the FAA is proposing to revise the statement to except pilots who “were” employed as PIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013.

    Current § 121.436(d) requires compliance with the requirements of § 121.436 by August 1, 2013. This paragraph states, however, that pilots who are employed as SIC in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, are not required to comply with the type rating requirement in § 121.436(b) until January 1, 2016. Now that § 121.436 is effective with no exceptions, the dates in paragraph (d) are no longer relevant. The FAA is, therefore, proposing to remove current paragraph (d) from § 121.436.19

    19 As previously discussed, the FAA is proposing to add a new paragraph (d) to § 121.436.

    III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this rule. Due to Executive Order (EO) 13771 requirements the FAA conducted further analysis and determined this rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action as the regulatory changes result in cost savings.

    While the costs may be minimal to the society, the proposed rule would be relieving both to individuals and corporations. The proposed rule change is composed of two distinct parts: The first part would modify the part 121 air carrier experience requirement to serve as a Pilot in Command (PIC) to allow credit for experience as PIC if a pilot held that position prior to July 31, 2013. Currently such experience does not count towards qualifying to be a PIC without filing for an exemption. This recognition of previous status and qualification for part 121 PIC employment service would relieve the individual pilots, part 121 air carriers that would employ those pilots, and the Federal government of procedural costs for developing, filing, and reviewing petitions for exemption. The cost of an exemption is about $1,500. The FAA does not know how many pilots would ask for such an exemption in the future. The second part would allow 250 hours of military PIC experience in powered-lift aircraft in horizontal flight to count towards the PIC airplane time required for an ATP certificate in the airplane category. This rule would relieve these military pilots seeking employment at a part 121 air carrier of the offsetting expense for accruing civilian flight time in airplanes to meet the ATP airplane minimum time requirements, which are required in order to serve at a part 121 air carrier. At $150 an hour per flight hour, the value of 250 flight hours is a cost savings of $37,500. The FAA requests comments on whether the enactment of counting military powered-lift time towards airplane PIC time would change these pilots' military retirement decisions. The FAA believes the costs are minimal and cost-relieving.

    FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.

    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

    The proposed rule would be relieving to pilots interested in part 121 operator employment and not affect small businesses. The rule would count PIC status which occurred prior to July 31, 2013 toward PIC qualifications for part 121 PIC qualification. The rule would also include allowance for counting military powered-lift experience towards part 121 PIC qualifications. As this rule would be relieving to pilots who are not small entities the FAA has determined this rule would not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While the rule would be relieving the direct impact would be to pilots wanting to work for a Part 121 operator.

    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that the rule will have the same impact on international and domestic flights and is a safety rule thus is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    The FAA has determined that there would be no new information collection associated with the proposal to allow a military pilot to use time as a PIC in powered-lift aircraft towards the 250 hours of PIC airplane time required for an ATP certificate. Approval to collect such information previously was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and was assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0021

    The agency is soliciting comments to—

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

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

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

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

    Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information collection requirement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this preamble by January 23, 2018. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20053.

    F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and has identified no differences with these proposed regulations.

    G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

    IV. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    Executive Order 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements.

    This proposed rule is expected to be an EO 13771 deregulatory action. Details on the estimated costs savings of this proposed rule can be found in the rule's economic analysis.

    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

    C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it would not be a “significant energy action” under the executive order and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    D. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

    V. Additional Information A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one time.

    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.

    B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or

    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this rulemaking.

    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

    List of Subjects 14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

    14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND INSTRUCTORS 1. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302, Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note).

    2. In § 61.159, revise paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
    § 61.159 Aeronautical experience: Airplane category rating.

    (a) * * *

    (5) 250 hours of flight time in an airplane as a pilot in command, or as second in command performing the duties of pilot in command while under the supervision of a pilot in command, or any combination thereof, subject to the following:

    (i) The flight time requirement must include at least—

    (A) 100 hours of cross-country flight time; and

    (B) 25 hours of night flight time.

    (ii) Except for a person who has been removed from flying status for lack of proficiency or because of a disciplinary action involving aircraft operations, a U.S. military pilot or former U.S. military pilot who meets the requirements of § 61.73(b)(1), or a military pilot in the Armed Forces of a foreign contracting State to the Convention on International Civil Aviation who meets the requirements of § 61.73(c)(1), may credit flight time in a powered-lift aircraft operated in horizontal flight toward the flight time requirement.

    PART 121—OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS 3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 note).

    4. In § 121.436, revise paragraphs (a)(3), (c), and (d) to read as follows:
    § 121.436 Pilot Qualification: Certificates and experience requirements.

    (a) * * *

    (3) If serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations, has 1,000 hours as second in command in operations under this part, pilot in command in operations under § 91.1053(a)(2)(i) of this chapter, pilot in command in operations under § 135.243(a)(1) of this chapter, or any combination thereof. For those pilots who were employed as pilot in command in part 121 operations on July 31, 2013, compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (a)(3) is not required.

    (c) For the purpose of satisfying the flight hour requirement in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a pilot may credit 500 hours of military flight time provided the flight time was obtained—

    (1) As pilot in command in a multiengine, turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane or powered-lift aircraft, or any combination thereof; and

    (2) In an operation requiring more than one pilot.

    (d) For the purpose of satisfying the flight hour requirement in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, a pilot may credit flight time obtained as pilot in command in operations under this part prior to July 31, 2013.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2017. John Barbagallo, Executive Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25358 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    82 225 Friday, November 24, 2017 Notices ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Notice of Public Meeting of the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States AGENCY:

    Administrative Conference of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Assembly of the Administrative Conference of the United States will hold a meeting to consider five proposed recommendations and to conduct other business. This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place on Thursday, December 14, 2017, 1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Friday, December 15, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The meeting may adjourn early if all business is finished.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 20581 (Main Conference Room).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel (Designated Federal Officer), Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2088; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Administrative Conference of the United States makes recommendations to federal agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the improvement of administrative procedures (5 U.S.C. 594). The membership of the Conference, when meeting in plenary session, constitutes the Assembly of the Conference (5 U.S.C. 595).

    Agenda: The Assembly will consider five proposed recommendations as described below:

    Plain Language in Regulatory Drafting. This proposed recommendation identifies tools and techniques agencies have used successfully to write regulatory documents (including rulemaking preambles and guidance documents) using plain language, proposes best practices for agencies in structuring their internal drafting processes, and suggests ways agencies can best use trainings and other informational resources.

    Marketable Permits. This proposed recommendation provides best practices for structuring, administering, and overseeing marketable permitting programs for any agency that has decided to implement such a program.

    Agency Guidance. This proposed recommendation provides best practices to agencies on the formulation and use of guidance documents.

    Regulatory Experimentation. This proposed recommendation offers advice to agencies on learning from different regulatory approaches. It encourages agencies to collect data, conduct analysis at all stages of the rulemaking lifecycle (from pre-rule analysis to retrospective review), and solicit public input at appropriate points in the process.

    Regulatory Waivers and Exemptions. This proposed recommendation provides best practices to agencies concerning their use of waivers and exemptions. It offers recommendations on how agencies should structure their waiver and exemption procedures to increase transparency and promote public input.

    Additional information about the proposed recommendations and the order of the agenda, as well as other materials related to the meeting, can be found at the 68th Plenary Session page on the Conference's Web site: https://www.acus.gov/meetings-and-events/plenary-meeting/68th-plenary-session.

    Public Participation: The Conference welcomes the attendance of the public at the meeting, subject to space limitations, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities or special needs. Members of the public who wish to attend in person are asked to RSVP online at the 68th Plenary Session Web page shown above, no later than two days before the meeting, in order to facilitate entry. Members of the public who attend the meeting may be permitted to speak only with the consent of the Chairman and the unanimous approval of the members of the Assembly. If you need special accommodations due to disability, please inform the Designated Federal Officer noted above at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. The public may also view the meeting through a live webcast, which will be available at: https://livestream.com/ACUS.

    Written Comments: Persons who wish to comment on any of the proposed recommendations may do so by submitting a written statement either online by clicking “Submit a Comment” on the 68th Plenary Session Web page shown above or by mail addressed to: December 2017 Plenary Session Comments, Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036. Written submissions must be received no later than 10:00 a.m. (EDT), Wednesday, December 13, to assure consideration by the Assembly.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Shawne McGibbon, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25374 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Senior Executive Service: Membership of Performance Review Board ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists approved candidates who will comprise a standing roster for service on the Agency's 2017 SES Performance Review Board. The Agency will use this roster to select SES board members. The standing roster is as follows:

    Allen, Colleen Bader, Harry Broderick, Deborah Buckley, Ruth Chan, Carol Chapotin, Saharah Moon Crumbly, Angelique Detherage, Maria Feinstein, Barbara Foley, Jason Girod, Gayle Jenkins, Robert Johnson, Mark Koek, Irene Kuyumjian, Kent Leavitt, William Lewis, Kimberly Longi, Maria Mahanand, Vedjai Mitchell, Reginald Moore, David Ohlweiler, John Pascocello, Susan Peters, James Shelat, Neilesh Steele, Gloria Vera, Mauricio Voorhees, John Walther, Mark Warren, Gordon Whyche-Shaw, Oren
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maryclare Whitehead, 202-216-3489.

    Dated: November 13, 2017. Karen Baquedano, Acting Director, Center for Performance Excellence.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25381 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and opportunity for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of the firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firms' workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [11/6/2017 through 11/16/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Composite Engineering, Inc 277 Baker Avenue, Concord, MA 01742 11/9/2017 The firm manufactures custom-made kayaks and rowing shells for recreational and racing purposes, and the firm also manufactures spars for racing scows and sailboats. Seeds of Happiness, LLC 150 Prospect Avenue, Kirkwood, MO 63122 11/14/2017 The firm manufactures ceramic novelty items. Prestolite Electric, Inc 400 Main Street, Arcade, NY 14009 11/16/2017 The firm manufactures alternators, starter motors, and replacement components for such products.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice. These petitions are received pursuant to section 251 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Irette Patterson, Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25370 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-67-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 26—Atlanta, Georgia; Notification of Proposed Production Activity Kubota North America Corporation (Agricultural and Specialty Vehicles) Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia

    Kubota North America Corporation (Kubota) submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facilities in Jefferson and Gainesville, Georgia. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on November 15, 2017.

    Kubota facilities are located within Subzone 26P. The facilities are used for the production of gasoline and diesel-powered agricultural and specialty vehicles such as backhoes, front loaders, skid steer loaders, lawn tractors and lawn mowers, sub-compact tractors and work utility vehicles. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Kubota from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production (estimated 20 percent of production). On its domestic sales, for the foreign-status materials/components noted below, Kubota would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to: Cabin tool box kits; heat, water, and sound insulation kits; weather strip kits; product catalogs; replacement glass and glass assemblies; mirror kits; drain kits; tool box kits; key assemblies; radio mounting kits; gas and diesel replacement engines; hydraulic cylinder assemblies; gas and diesel engine repair kits; gas, oil, water filters, and filter and pump assemblies; liquid applicator attachments; sprayer attachment for tractors; self-propelled trucks; load-lifting equipment; bulldozers; graders; tamping machines; front-end loaders; excavators and backhoes; gas and diesel tractors; snowplows; front end loader buckets; extension blade kits; backhoe cab conversion kits; rotary tillers; riding mowers; disc mowers; haymaking equipment; farm implement repair kits; hydraulic valves and valve kits; transmission repair kits; alternator kits; work light kits; horn kits; rear defoggers; engine diagnostic software; radio cassette players; LCD monitors; travel alarm kits; remote hitch switches; trailer kits; connector assemblies; vehicle control units; wire harnesses; gas and diesel tractors for agricultural use; gas and diesel work utility vehicles; tractor bodies; gear boxes for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; roll-over protection systems; brake kits; transmission rework kits; drive axles, clutches, driveshaft assemblies and parts; wheels and wheel and tire assemblies; steering kits; drive train repair parts for work utility vehicles; cruise control kits; instructor seats with seat belts and, arm rest kits (duty-free to 7.8%). Kubota would be able to avoid duty on foreign-status components which become scrap/waste. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Oil and grease; glues and adhesives for vehicle assembly; antiknock fluids; reinforced and unreinforced tubes and hoses with and without fittings for vehicle assembly; pipe fittings and switches for vehicle assembly; adhesive tapes; sound and water absorbers; insulators for use in vehicle assembly; plastic boxes; plastic bags; plastic bottles; caps for use in vehicle assembly; plastic buckets; plastic bolts; plastic handles and knobs; rubber O-rings; rubber gaskets; rubber seals; rubber rods; hoses and belts for use in gas and diesel vehicle assembly; tires for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; inner tubes for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; sleeves and abrasives; rubber tractor parts; tool cases for tractors; wood cases for tractor tools and parts; safety, warning, and identification labels; printed instructions; warranty certificates; instruction manuals; drawings and schematics; paper for printed instructions; brake linings; friction materials; gaskets, including gaskets with flanges; molded and safety glass parts; framed and unframed mirror glass assemblies; lenses and lens covers; fiberglass insulation; steel bars; galvanized steel tubes; stainless steel tubes; iron, steel, and base metal tubes and pipes; iron, steel, and base metal pipe fittings; adapter assemblies; couplers; structural steel; steel containers; steel enclosures; steel cables; steel chain and chain parts; iron, steel, and stainless steel bolts, studs, screws, nuts, washers, rivets, clips, keys, and pins; springs; cast iron parts; shims; hose fittings; brass plates; copper tubing; slide rings and eye joints; packing and packing nuts for fluid containments in agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; copper and brass washers and other fasteners for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; adapters and spacers; oil cooler connectors; intake screens; copper wire; slip joint pliers; open end wrenches; hammers; steel hand tools; clamps for inclusion in tool boxes for tractors; tool boxes for tractor tool kits; blades for agricultural tractors and tractor implements; locks, lock parts, and lock assemblies for vehicles; hinges and brackets; handles; levers and brackets; lock brackets, and bracket assemblies; door dampers; steel flex tubing; plugs; nameplates for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; gas and diesel engines; dynamos; fuel tank caps; connecting rods and connecting rod assemblies; rocker arms and rocker arm assemblies; push rods; pistons; exhaust manifolds; intake manifolds; carburetors; carburetor assemblies and subassemblies; intake valves; exhaust valves; throttle body assemblies; piston rings; spark plug caps; chain guides; oil dipstick guides; oil dipsticks; crankshafts and crankshaft shims; cylinder heads; water pumps; cylinder liners; tensioners; brackets; housings; rotors; flyweight governors; bearing case covers; bearing holders; crankcases; vaporizer assemblies; crankcase covers; carburetor jets and nozzles; fuel injectors; timing chain covers; fuel delivery assemblies; rocker arm covers; valve covers; balancer shafts; filter elements; oil pans; gasket shims for gas and diesel engines; hydraulic cylinder assemblies; hydraulic engines; spring motors; fuel pumps and assemblies; compressor assemblies; hydraulic fluid; gas, oil, air, and water pumps and pump assemblies; oil fill pipes; air compressors and assemblies; fans; air conditioners; condensors; heating units; gas, oil, air, and water filters and filter assemblies; cutting blades and packaging machinery guides for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; digital scales; fire extinguishers; sprayers; washer tanks; washer nozzles; jacks for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; self-propelled trucks; conveyor belts for agricultural use; load-lifting equipment; bulldozers; graders; tamping machines; front-end loaders; backhoes; snowplows; tractor implements; tractor attachments; hay equipment; parts for tractor implements; feed preparation equipment; parts for feed equipment; flat panel displays for vehicle information display; electromechanical displays; electrical indicators; hydraulic valves and valve assemblies for agricultural tractors and construction equipment; bearings; steel balls for bearings; roller bearing cups; universal joint assemblies; bushing, bearing, and gear cases; pulleys for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; drive shaft components; oil and dust seals; motors, generators and motor assemblies; commutator parts; discharge ballasts; static converters; power supply parts; permanent magnets; electromagnetic clutches; solenoids; batteries; battery covers and retainers; spark plugs; magnetos; distributors; starter and alternator assemblies; gas controllers and starter systems; light assemblies; safety buzzers; windshield wipers; windshield wiper arm assemblies; electric space heaters; heater blocks; resistors and other heater components; speakers; microphones; radio transmission devices; radar equipment; stereos; radios; vehicle information displays; antennae; lighted indicator panels; indicator panels; condensor assemblies; seals; capacitors; resistors; sensors; variable resistors; circuit boards; circuit breakers; vehicle fuses; relays; switch assemblies; light sockets and light socket assemblies; contactor assemblies; fuse and dashboard assemblies; vehicle connectors; lamps for vehicles; halogen and filament lamps; lamp parts; diodes; vehicle engine control units; vehicle electrical controls; vehicle electrical control center parts; copper winding wire; electrical cables; ignition wire sets; battery cables; wire harnesses; electrodes; electrical insulators; electrical conduits; empty cells for vehicle batteries; battery fixtures; tractors; dump vehicles; tractor bodies; bumpers; seat belt assemblies; seat belt parts for vehicles; vehicle parking locks; transmission components; front axle assemblies; wheels; shock absorbers; radiators; sound mufflers for vehicle engines; clutch assemblies; bearing holders; transmissions; transmission sub-assemblies; brakes; axle covers; brackets; stays; rods; muffler pipe; rod assemblies; flanges; supports; knobs; levers; wiper blades; control wire; control cable; shock absorbers; universal joints; bevel gears; spiral gears; pinion gears; guards; lenses; plates; planetary gears; splines; drive shafts; clutch rod shafts; u-joints; shaft assemblies; collars; differential cases; transmission cases; ball joints; axle cases; gear cases; gear shafts; pins; shims; bushings; drive shaft caps; shaft couplings; steering shafts; shaft yokes; thrust collars; synchronizer rings; dust covers; heater assemblies; tie rods; brackets; battery retainers; control pedals; fuel tanks; hand rails; radiator grilles; bonnet dampers; steering linkages; suspension linkages; muffler stays; struts for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles; unmounted glass lenses for vehicle signals and controls; glass lenses for vehicle signals and controls; thermometers; sensors; gauges; oil switches; electrical sensors and liquid and gas sensors; odometers; other panel meters for use in vehicle control; counters for use in vehicles and farm implements; volt meters for vehicle and farm implement controls; other instruments for vehicle and farm implement controls; test benches for vehicle and implement repair; measuring equipment for vehicle control and repair; thermostats; temperature controllers; speed sensors for vehicle control; regulators; rotary switches; seats and seat assemblies; slide rollers for seats; work lamps; toy tractors; brushes for vehicle repair; and, electric lighter covers for agricultural tractors and other off-road vehicles (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 12%). The request indicates that bearings are subject to antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) orders when imported from certain countries. The FTZ Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.14(e)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is January 3, 2018.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at [email protected] or (202) 482-1963.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25399 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket No. 171010985-7985-01] National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites organizations to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector. This notice is the initial step for the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) in collaborating with technology companies to address cybersecurity challenges identified under the Hospitality Sector program. Participation in the use case is open to all interested organizations.

    DATES:

    Interested parties must contact NIST to request a letter of interest template to be completed and submitted to NIST. Letters of interest will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Collaborative activities will commence as soon as enough completed and signed letters of interest have been returned to address all the necessary components and capabilities, but no earlier than December 26, 2017. When the use case has been completed, NIST will post a notice on the NCCoE Hospitality Sector program Web site at https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/use-cases/securing-property-management-systems announcing the completion of the use case and informing the public that it will no longer accept letters of interest for this use case.

    ADDRESSES:

    The NCCoE is located at 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Letters of interest must be submitted to [email protected] or via hardcopy to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Organizations whose letters of interest are accepted in accordance with the process set forth in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice will be asked to sign a consortium Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with NIST. An NCCoE consortium CRADA template can be found at: http://nccoe.nist.gov/node/138.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William Newhouse via email to [email protected]; by telephone (301) 975-0232; or by mail to National Institute of Standards and Technology, NCCoE; 9700 Great Seneca Highway, Rockville, MD 20850. Additional details about the Hospitality Sector program are available at https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/use-cases/securing-property-management-systems.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The NCCoE, part of NIST, is a public-private collaboration for accelerating the widespread adoption of integrated cybersecurity tools and technologies. The NCCoE brings together experts from industry, government, and academia under one roof to develop practical, interoperable cybersecurity approaches that address the real-world needs of complex Information Technology (IT) systems. By accelerating dissemination and use of these integrated tools and technologies for protecting IT assets, the NCCoE will enhance trust in U.S. IT communications, data, and storage systems; reduce risk for companies and individuals using IT systems; and encourage development of innovative, job-creating cybersecurity products and services.

    Process: NIST is soliciting responses from all sources of relevant security capabilities (see below) to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to provide products and technical expertise to support and demonstrate security platforms for the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector. The full use case can be viewed at: https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/use-cases/securing-property-management-systems.

    Interested parties should contact NIST using the information provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. NIST will then provide each interested party with a letter of interest template, which the party must complete, certify that it is accurate, and submit to NIST. NIST will contact interested parties if there are questions regarding the responsiveness of the letters of interest to the use case objective or requirements identified below. NIST will select participants who have submitted complete letters of interest on a first come, first served basis within each category of product components or capabilities listed below up to the number of participants in each category necessary to carry out this use case. However, there may be continuing opportunity to participate even after initial activity commences. Selected participants will be required to enter into a consortium CRADA with NIST (for reference, see ADDRESSES section above). NIST published a notice in the Federal Register on October 19, 2012 (77 FR 64314) inviting U.S. companies to enter into National Cybersecurity Excellence Partnerships (NCEPs) in furtherance of the NCCoE. For this demonstration project, NCEP partners will not be given priority for participation.

    Use Case Objective: The objective of this project is to help the hospitality industry implement stronger security measures and reduce vulnerabilities within and around their Property Management Systems (PMS), with a focus on the connection to a point-of-sale (POS) system. The project will identify typical hotel IT infrastructures and PMS-POS configurations, systems, and components that integrate or interface with both applications. The project will also identify interactions between PMS operators and authorized third-party service provider (SP) systems (e.g., online booking, customer relationship marketing partners, etc.). This project will result in a NIST Cybersecurity Practice Guide—a publicly available description of the solution and practical steps needed to effectively secure property management systems. A detailed description of the Securing Property Management Systems Use Case is available at: https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/use-cases/securing-property-management-systems.

    Requirements: Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify which security platform component(s) or capability(ies) it is offering. Letters of interest should not include company proprietary information, and all components and capabilities must be commercially available. Components are listed in section 3 of the Securing Property Management Systems Project Description for the Hospitality Sector (for reference, please see the link in the PROCESS section above) and include, but are not limited to:

    • PMS and POS system(s) • Point-to-Point Encryption (P2PE) • Data tokenization • Multifactor authentication mechanism • Access control platform • User behavior analytics • Network analytics • Data logging • Data storage • Virtualization

    Each responding organization's letter of interest should identify how their products address one or more of the following desired solution characteristics in section 3 of the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector (for reference, please see the link in the PROCESS section above):

    1. Auditing, analytics and response capabilities such as:

    • Complete, near real-time auditing and reporting of activity, including: ○ User behavior analytics ○ Unauthorized access ○ Unauthorized user behavior ○ Network analytics ○ Access requests and decisions • Automated detection and/or response to incidents • Continuous monitoring and retention of information on component interactions • Continuous monitoring and retention of network events

    2. System Protection and Authentication capabilities with enforcement such as:

    • Access control for internal and third-party users, including: ○ Access control policy creation ○ Determination of access control decisions based on policies ○ Access control policy enforcement • Multifactor Authentication for remote and third-party access • Adherence to principles of segmentation and zero-trust, including: ○ Multiple trust zones and logical trust boundaries ○ Network segmentation gateways ○ Network virtualization platform and micro-segmentation

    3. Data Protection and Encryption capabilities to prevent damage to PCI/PII confidentiality, as well as the confidentiality and integrity of system data such as:

    • Point-to-point encryption (P2PE) • Limited/no storing/processing/transmission of payment card data • Secure data tokenization and token management capabilities, including: ○ Token generation ○ Token mapping ○ Cryptographic key management • Utilization of a non-PCI, sensitive consumer secure data vault • Prevention of damage to PCI/PII confidentiality • Prevention of damage to PMS functionality and security, and improved mitigation of cybersecurity risks • Secure Payment Terminal • Payment Information Proxy service

    Responding organizations need to understand and, in their letters of interest, commit to provide:

    1. Access for all participants' project teams to component interfaces and the organization's experts necessary to make functional connections among security platform components.

    2. Support for development and demonstration of the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector in NCCoE facilities, which will be conducted in a manner consistent with the following standards and guidance: FIPS 140-2, FIPS 200, FIPS 201, SP 800-53, SP 800-63-3, and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS).

    Additional details about the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector use case are available at: https://nccoe.nist.gov/projects/use-cases/securing-property-management-systems.

    NIST cannot guarantee that all of the products proposed by respondents will be used in the demonstration. Each prospective participant will be expected to work collaboratively with NIST staff and other project participants under the terms of the consortium CRADA in the development of the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector capability. Prospective participants' contribution to the collaborative effort will include assistance in establishing the necessary interface functionality, connection and set-up capabilities and procedures, demonstration harnesses, environmental and safety conditions for use, integrated platform user instructions, and demonstration plans and scripts necessary to demonstrate the desired capabilities. Each participant will train NIST personnel, as necessary, to operate its product in capability demonstrations to the Hospitality community. Following successful demonstrations, NIST will publish a description of the security platform and its performance characteristics sufficient to permit other organizations to develop and deploy security platforms that meet the security objectives of the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector use case. These descriptions will be public information.

    Under the terms of the consortium CRADA, NIST will support development of interfaces among participants' products by providing IT infrastructure, laboratory facilities, office facilities, collaboration facilities, and staff support to component composition, security platform documentation, and demonstration activities.

    The dates of the demonstration of the Securing Property Management Systems for the Hospitality Sector capability will be announced on the NCCoE Web site at least two weeks in advance at http://nccoe.nist.gov/. The expected outcome of the demonstration is to improve Securing Property Management Systems across an entire Hospitality Sector enterprise. Participating organizations will gain from the knowledge that their products are interoperable with other participants' offerings.

    For additional information on the NCCoE governance, business processes, and NCCoE operational structure, visit the NCCoE Web site http://nccoe.nist.gov/.

    Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25427 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF849 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Projects/Topics Management Action Team via webinar.

    DATES:

    The Projects/Topics Management Action Team meeting will be held on Monday, December 11, 2017 at 3 p.m. The meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar and are open to members of the public. Webinar registration is required and registration links will be posted to the Citizen Science program page of the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.

    The Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.

    Items to be addressed during these meetings:

    1. Discuss work on tasks in the Terms of Reference 2. Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25367 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Mammals and Endangered Species AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of applications for permit amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the permit holders listed below have applied for an amendment to their Scientific Research Permits.

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page, https://apps.nmfs.noaa.gov, and then selecting the File No. from the list of available applications.

    These documents are also available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected]. Please include the File No. in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on the application(s) would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shasta McClenahan or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject amendments to the permits listed below are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216), 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).

    Notices were published in the Federal Register on the dates listed below that a permit had been issued to the below-named permit holders. To locate the Federal Register notice that announced our receipt of the application, notice of issuance, and a complete description of the research, go to www.regulations.gov and search on the permit number provided in the table below.

    File No. RIN Permit holder Federal Register notice of issuance Permit issuance date 14450 0648-XS35 NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (Responsible Party: Bonnie Ponwith, Ph.D.), 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149 79 FR 13042; March 7, 2014 March 4, 2014. 14856 0648-XB157 Bruce R. Mate, Ph.D., Hatfield Marine Science Center, Oregon State University, Newport, OR 97365 78 FR 3346; January 21, 2014 February 25, 2014. 16239 0648-XC268 Dan Engelhaupt, Ph.D., HDR, 5700 Lake Wright Drive, Norfolk, VA 23502 78 FR 60852; October 2, 2013 September 11, 2013. 17312 0648-XC268 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, (Responsible Party: John Hildebrand, Ph.D.), University of California, 8635 Discovery Way, La Jolla, CA 92093 78 FR 60852; October 2, 2013 September 11, 2013. 18636 0648-XE075 Iain Kerr, D.H.L., Ocean Alliance, 32 Horton Street, Gloucester, MA 01930 81 FR 13342; March 14, 2016 February 17, 2016.

    The permit holders are requesting amendments to their respective permits to authorize take of the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni) due to NMFS' proposed rule to list this subspecies as endangered under the ESA (81 FR 88639). Combined, the permits currently authorize the following research activities for the species: manned and unmanned aerial surveys and vessel-based surveys for passive acoustic recordings, above and underwater photography and videography, photo-identification, behavioral observations, biological sampling (feces, sloughed skin, exhaled air, and skin and blubber biopsy), tracking, and tagging (suction-cup, dart/barb, and implantable). The permit holders seek to amend their permits to add dedicated takes for the Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whale using these methods should NMFS list the species under the ESA. Details of specific methods and take numbers are available in each application for amendment. The amended permits would be valid through the respective permit's current expiration date.

    If the proposed ESA listing becomes final, the Permits and Conservation Division proposes to conditionally authorize the take of Gulf of Mexico Bryde's whales so that no more than the entire population (currently estimated at 33 whales) may be taken annually by methods that may result in Level A harassment (mainly biopsy and tagging) across all permits combined. Authorized takes may be re-authorized and reallocated among permits on an annual or other specified basis after evaluating the status of the species, management needs, researchers' plans, and reported takes by permit holders during the prior year.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that an environmental assessment (EA) is the appropriate level of analysis for these actions. A batched EA is being prepared to examine whether significant environmental impacts could result from issuance of the proposed scientific research permit amendments.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25340 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF844 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold its 161st meeting in December to discuss the items contained in the agenda in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on December 12-13, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Marriott Resort San Juan Stellaris Casino Hotel, 1309 Ashford Avenue, Condado, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: December 12, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. ° Call to Order ° Adoption of Agenda ° Consideration of 160th Council Meeting Verbatim Transcriptions ° Executive Director's Report —Status of the Caribbean Fisheries after the storms Irma and María —Puerto Rico —U.S. Virgin Island ° Scientific and Statistical Committee Meeting Report—Richard Appeldoorn ° Island-based Fishery Management Plans: Review of “Final” Draft Environmental Impact Statement Draft Actions and Alternatives for Each Island Group —Action 1: Species to Manage —Action 2: Species Groupings —Action 3: Reference Points —Action 4: Essential Fish Habitat for Stocks Not Previously Managed in Federal Waters —Action 5: Framework Measures —Next Steps/Timeline Review ° Ecosystem-based Fishery Management —Roadmap Implementation Plan Status Report —Update on Fishery Ecosystem Plan Development ° Other Business —Public Comment Period— (5-minutes presentations) December 12, 2017, 5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.

    ° Administrative Matters

    —CY 2017 —Closed Session December 13, 2017, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. ° Outreach and Education Report—Alida Ortiz ° Enforcement Issues: —Puerto Rico-DNER —U.S. Virgin Islands-DPNR —U.S. Coast Guard —NMFS/NOAA ° Meetings Attended by Council Members and Staff ° Other Business —Public Comment Period— (5-minute presentations) ° Next Meeting

    The order of business may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the completion of agenda items. The meeting will begin on December 12, 2017 at 9 a.m. Other than the start time, interested parties should be aware that discussions may start earlier or later than indicated. In addition, the meeting may be extended from, or completed prior to the date established in this notice.

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

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone: (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25366 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Greater Atlantic Region Vessel Identification Requirements.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0350.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 3,665.

    Average Hours per Response: 45 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 2,749.

    Needs and Uses: Regulations at 50 CFR 648.8 and 697.8 require that owners of vessels over 25 ft (7.6 m) in registered length that have Federal permits to fish in the Greater Atlantic Region display the vessel's name and official number. The name and number must be of a specific size at specified locations: The vessel name must be affixed to the port and starboard sides of the bow and, if possible, on its stern. The official number must be displayed on the port and starboard sides of the deckhouse or hull, and on an appropriate weather deck so as to be clearly visible from enforcement vessels and aircraft. The display of the identifying characters aids in fishery law enforcement.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25378 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE477 SAW-SARC 64 Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS and the Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) will convene the 64th SAW Stock Assessment Review Committee for the purpose of reviewing the stock assessment of Atlantic mackerel. The Northeast Regional SAW is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by SAW working groups and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts called the Stock Assessment Review Committee, or SARC. The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.

    DATES:

    The public portion of the Stock Assessment Review Committee Meeting will be held from November 28, 2017-November 30, 2017. The meeting will commence on November 28, 2017 at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for the daily meeting agenda.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the S.H. Clark Conference Room in the Aquarium Building of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheena Steiner, 508-495-2177; email: [email protected]; or, James Weinberg, 508-495-2352; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    For further information, please visit the NEFSC Web site at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov. For additional information about the SARC meeting and the stock assessment review of Atlantic mackerel, please visit the NMFS/NEFSC SAW Web page at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/saw/.

    DAILY MEETING AGENDA—SAW/SARC 64 Benchmark Stock Assessment for Atlantic mackerel. (Subject to Change; All times are approximate and may be changed at the discretion of the SARC Chair) Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10 a.m.-10:30 a.m Welcome Introductions James Weinberg, SAW Chair. 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m Atlantic mackerel (AM) Assessment Presentation Kiersten Curti. 12:30 p.m.-1:30 p.m Lunch 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m AM Presentation (cont.) Kiersten Curti. 3:30 p.m.-3:45 p.m Break 3:45 p.m.-5:45 p.m AM SARC Discussion John Boreman, SARC Chair. 5:45 p.m.-6 p.m Public Comment Period Wednesday, November 29, 2017 9:00 a.m.-10:45 a.m Revisit with AM presenters John Boreman. 10:45 a.m.-11:00 a.m Break 11:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m Revisit with AM presenters John Boreman. 11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m Public Comment 12:00-1:15 p.m Lunch 1:15 p.m.-4:00 p.m Review/Edit Assessment Summary Report John Boreman. 4:00 p.m.-4:15 p.m Break 4:15 p.m.-5:00 p.m SARC Report Writing Thursday, November 30, 2017 9 a.m.-5 p.m SARC Report Writing.

    The meeting is open to the public; however, during the “SARC Report Writing” sessions on November 29th and 30th, the public should not engage in discussion with the SARC.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Sheena Steiner at the NEFSC, 508-495-2177, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25334 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF845 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of meetings of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's Citizen Science Advisory Panel Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education; and Data Management Action Teams.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold meetings of its Citizen Science Advisory Panel Volunteers; Communication/Outreach/Education; and Data Management Action Teams via webinar.

    DATES:

    The Volunteers Team meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 1 p.m.; Communication/Outreach/Education Team on Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2 p.m.; and Data Management Team on Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10 a.m. Each meeting is scheduled to last approximately 90 minutes. Additional Action Team webinar and plenary webinar dates and times will publish in a subsequent issue in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meetings will be held via webinar and are open to members of the public. Webinar registration is required and registration links will be posted to the Citizen Science program page of the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net.

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Von Harten, Citizen Science Program Manager, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8433 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council created a Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool in June 2017. The Council appointed members of the Citizen Science Advisory Panel Pool to five Action Teams in the areas of Volunteers, Data Management, Projects/Topics Management, Finance, and Communication/Outreach/Education to develop program policies and operations for the Council's Citizen Science Program.

    Each Action Team will meet to continue work on developing recommendations on program policies and operations to be reviewed by the Council's Citizen Science Committee. Public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the meeting.

    Items to be addressed during these meetings:

    1. Discuss work on tasks in the Terms of Reference 2. Other Business Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25368 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF841 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 51 Assessment Webinar VI for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 51 stock assessment process for Gulf of Mexico gray snapper will consist of a Data Workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 51 Assessment Webinar VI will be held December 11, 2017, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The items of discussion during the Assessment Webinar VI are as follows:

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

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

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

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25365 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Recreational Angler Survey of Sea Turtle Interactions.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 12,300.

    Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes each for angler intercept interviews and sea turtle incidental take capture forms.

    Burden Hours: 1,025.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a new information collection.

    NOAA NMFS would like to conduct an intercept survey to assess the extent of interactions between recreational anglers on piers and other shore-based fishing structures, and sea turtles. This survey will also assess the feasibility of an intercept survey for this purpose in terms response rates and data collection. The survey will be administered on piers and other fixed structures nationwide, but focused within NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region and Southeast Region, and will survey approximately 36,000 individual recreational fishermen. The respondents will be verbally asked a series of questions, no longer than 5 minutes, and the interviewer will record answers. Members of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network will also complete sea turtle incidental take capture forms when applicable.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: One time.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25376 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Billfish Tagging Report.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0009.

    Form Number(s): 88-162.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1,000.

    Average Hours per Response: 5 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 83.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Southwest Fisheries Science Center operates a billfish tagging program. Tagging supplies are provided to volunteer anglers. When anglers catch and release a tagged fish they submit a brief report on the fish and the location of the tagging. The information obtained is used in conjunction with tag returns to determine billfish migration patterns, mortality rates, and similar information useful in the management of the billfish fisheries. This program is authorized under 16 U.S.C. 760(e), Study of migratory game fish; waters; research; purpose.

    Affected Public: Individuals and households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25377 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

    Title: State and Local Implementation Grant Program 2.0 Reporting Requirements.

    OMB Control Number: None.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 56.

    Average Hours per Response: Quarterly reports 12.5 hours.

    Burden Hours: 2,800.

    Needs and Uses: The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Act, Pub. L. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012)) was enacted in February, 2012. The Act meets a long-standing national priority, as well as a critical national infrastructure need, to create a single, interoperable, nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN) that allows law enforcement officers, fire fighters, emergency medical service professionals, and other public safety officials to effectively communicate with each other across agencies and jurisdictions. Public safety workers have long been hindered in their ability to respond in a crisis situation because of incompatible communications networks and often outdated communications equipment.

    The Act established the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within NTIA and authorizes it to take all actions necessary to ensure the design, construction, and operation of the NPSBN, based on a single, national network architecture.

    The Act also charged NTIA with establishing a grant program, the State and Local Implementation Grant Program (SLIGP), to assist State, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions with identifying, planning, and implementing the most efficient and effective means to use and integrate the infrastructure, equipment, and other architecture associated with the NPSBN to satisfy the wireless broadband and data services needs of their jurisdictions. NTIA originally awarded $116.5 million in grant funds to 54 state and territorial recipients between July and September 2013. The original SLIGP grant awards end on February 28, 2018.

    With an available balance of up to $43.4 million from the original SLIGP fund of $116.5 million, NTIA will continue to provide funding through SLIGP 2.0 grants to assist State, regional, tribal, and local jurisdictions to engage effectively with FirstNet and provide it with information needed to continue with planning the NPSBN and the deployment of the Radio Access Network (RAN) in an effective and timely manner, as required by the Act. NTIA will use the collection of information to monitor and evaluate how SLIGP 2.0 grant recipients are achieving the core purposes of the program established by the Act.

    NTIA received one comment during the 60-Day PRA Notice comment period. The Bureau of Communications and Information Services of the Pennsylvania State Police submitted comments to NTIA. Two of its comments are in agreement with NTIA's proposed data collection and the estimated burden of hours and costs to submit required reporting for SLIGP 2.0 grantees.

    It also commented on comparing quarterly progress to a grantee's baseline, allowing a single quarterly narrative including graphs and charts and submitting reports electronically including an electronic signature. Under SLIGP 2.0, NTIA will not require that grantees provide quarterly to baseline progress comparisons and has reduced narrative reporting as compared to SLIGP 1.0 reporting requirements. NTIA has determined that grantees may include graphs and charts to complement required quarterly reporting, and electronic signatures of authorized officials are acceptable for certification purposes. While using an on-line portal may be advantageous, the limited amount and frequency of data to be collected over the duration of the SLIGP 2.0 grant period of performance and the associated costs of establishing an electronic on-line portal mechanism makes such an investment prohibitive.

    The publication of this notice allows NTIA to begin the process to request OMB approval to collect information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Affected Public: State, regional, local and tribal government organizations.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondent's Obligation: This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Department Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25389 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION Final Redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application Status Under Regulation B AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Bureau official approval.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection is publishing a notice pursuant to section 706(e) of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act concerning the update of the redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application to include an applicant language preference question.

    DATES:

    This official approval is issued November 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marta Tanenhaus and James Wylie, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552, at 202-435-7700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) administers the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691, et seq. and its implementing regulation, Regulation B, 12 CFR part 1002. Section 706(e) of ECOA, as amended, provides that no provision of ECOA imposing liability shall apply to any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any official rule, regulation, or interpretation thereof by the Bureau or in conformity with any interpretation or approval by an official or employee of the Bureau duly authorized by the Bureau to issue such an interpretation or approval. This notice (Bureau official approval) constitutes such an interpretation or approval, and therefore section 706(e) protects a creditor from civil liability under ECOA for any act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with this notice.

    The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Federal National Mortgage Association (collectively, the Enterprises), under the conservatorship of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), issued a revised and redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application on August 23, 2016 (redesigned URLA). That issuance was part of the effort of these entities to update the Uniform Loan Application Dataset (ULAD) in conjunction with the redesigned URLA. Bureau staff reviewed the redesigned URLA in accordance with the request by FHFA and the Enterprises for a Bureau official approval of the redesigned URLA under ECOA and Regulation B, and the Bureau issued a Bureau official approval notice on September 23, 2016, which was published in the Federal Register on September 29, 2016.1 That notice states that Bureau staff determined that the relevant language in the redesigned URLA is in compliance with the regulatory provisions of Regulation B § 1002.5(b) through (d), regarding requests for protected applicant-characteristic information and certain other information. The notice also recognizes that the use of the redesigned URLA by creditors is not required under Regulation B. The notice goes on to state that a creditor that uses the redesigned URLA without any modification that would violate § 1002.5(b) through (d) would act in compliance with § 1002.5(b) through (d).

    1 81 FR 66930 (Sept. 29, 2016), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/09/29/2016-23555/status-of-new-uniform-residential-loan-application-and-collection-of-expanded-home-mortgage. The redesigned URLA is attached to the notice.

    On November 17, 2017, the Enterprises, under the conservatorship of the FHFA, issued an update to the redesigned URLA that included, among other modifications, an additional question concerning an applicant's language preference (final redesigned URLA).2 Bureau staff has reviewed the final redesigned URLA, including the additional language preference question, in accordance with the request by FHFA for a Bureau official approval under ECOA and Regulation B. Bureau staff specifically reviewed the question with respect to Regulation B § 1002.5(b) concerning requests for information about national origin.

    2See final redesigned URLA (Borrower Information, Additional Borrower, Unmarried Addendum, Lender Loan Information, Continuation Sheet, and Demographic Information Addendum) attached to this notice under Section IV. See also https://www.fanniemae.com/singlefamily/uniform-residential-loan-application and http://www.freddiemac.com/singlefamily/sell/ulad.html.

    II. Bureau Official Approval

    Bureau staff has determined that the final redesigned URLA is in compliance with § 1002.5(b) through (d).3 A creditor's use of the final redesigned URLA without any modification that would violate § 1002.5(b) through (d) would act in compliance with § 1002.5(b) through (d). Bureau staff has also determined that because the substance and form of section 7 of the final redesigned URLA is substantially similar to the form the Bureau provides as a model form in Regulation C, the final redesigned URLA may be used in complying with § 1002.13.4 A creditor's use of the final redesigned URLA is not required under Regulation B.

    3 Regulation B § 1002.5(b) provides rules concerning requests for information about race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. Section 1002.5(c) provides rules concerning requests for information about a spouse or former spouse. Section 1002.5(d) provides rules concerning requests for information regarding marital status; income from alimony, child support, or separate maintenance; and childbearing or childrearing.

    4 Regulation C implements the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). See Regulation C, 12 CFR part 1003, appendix B, Sample Data Collection Form. Effective January 1, 2018, Regulation B § 1002.13(a) comment 7 provides that, “[f]or applications subject to § 1002.13(a)(1), a creditor that collects information about the ethnicity, race, and sex of an applicant in compliance with the requirements of appendix B to 12 CFR part 1003 is acting in compliance with § 1002.13 concerning the collection of an applicant's ethnicity, race, and sex information.” See Amendments to Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B) Ethnicity and Race Information Collection, 82 FR 45680, 45689 (Oct. 2, 2017).

    The issuance of this Bureau official approval has been duly authorized by the Director of the Bureau and provides the protection afforded under section 706(e) of ECOA.

    III. Regulatory Requirements

    This Bureau official approval is an approval or interpretation exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this notice does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

    The existing information collections required by ECOA and Regulation B have been approved by OMB under OMB Control #3170-0013, and the information collections for HMDA and Regulation C are approved under OMB Control #3170-0008. The Bureau's approval of the updated redesigned URLA does not add or alter any information collections approved under either rule.

    IV. Final Redesigned Uniform Residential Loan Application BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P EN24NO17.000 EN24NO17.001 EN24NO17.002 EN24NO17.003 EN24NO17.004 EN24NO17.005 EN24NO17.006 EN24NO17.007 EN24NO17.008 EN24NO17.009 EN24NO17.010 EN24NO17.011 EN24NO17.012 EN24NO17.013 EN24NO17.014 EN24NO17.015 EN24NO17.016 Dated: November 20, 2017. David Silberman, Acting Deputy Director of the Bureau and Associate Director, Division of Research, Markets, and Regulations, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25434 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-C
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Reserve Forces Policy Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will take place.

    DATES:

    The RFPB will hold a meeting on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 from 8:10 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 8:10 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. will be closed to the public. The portion of the meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. will be open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The RFPB meeting address is the Pentagon, Room 3E863, Arlington, VA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Sabol, (703) 681-0577 (Voice), 703-681-0002 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Reserve Forces Policy Board, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 601, Falls Church, VA 22041. Web site: http://rfpb.defense.gov/. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the Web site.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate information related to strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Reserve Components.

    Agenda: The RFPB will hold a meeting from 8:10 a.m. to 3:50 p.m. The portion of the meeting from 8:10 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. will be closed to the public and will consist of remarks to the RFPB from following invited speakers: The Deputy Secretary of Defense will address key national military strategy challenges facing our Nation and priorities for adapting the force and the use of the Reserve Components to accomplish these challenges. The Commander, U.S. Northern Command will discuss the readiness, availability, and use of the National Guard and Reserve within the Northern Command with their increased emphasis on the homeland security missions for the Reserve Component members. The Acting Secretary of the U.S. Army will discuss the Army's posture, status on the Report of the National Commission on the Future of the Army recommendations, and plans to adapt the Total Army to meet future challenges. The Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) will brief the findings of the current IDA study on the Reserve Components performance during Operation Enduring Freedom. Major General Sheila Zuehlke, USAFR (Retired), Subcommittee on Enhancing DoD's Role in the Homeland Board Member and RADML David Dermanelian, USCG, J7, Director, Exercises and Training, USCYBERCOM will discuss the USCYBERCOM's Service's cyber training and certification program, and the use of the National Guard and Reserve to meet the cyber threats. The portion of the meeting from 1:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. will be open to the public and will consist of briefings from the following: The Chief of the Air Force Reserve will discuss the Air Force Reserve goals, readiness objectives, and challenges for the “Operational Reserve” as part of the Total Force. The Adjutant General of Texas National Guard and the Director of the Joint Staff, Joint Force Headquarters of Texas National Guard will discuss the recent Texas domestic operations involving the Texas National Guard during Hurricane Harvey. The National Chair, Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve will discuss the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve's mission of facilitating and promoting a cooperative culture of employer support for National Guard and Reserve. The Chair of the RFPB's Subcommittee on Supporting & Sustaining Reserve Component Personnel will present to the RFPB the subcommittee's proposed recommendations to the Secretary of Defense concerning the OUSD P&R Duty Status Reform proposal and the co-sponsored National Guard Bureau's and OASD Manpower & Reserve Affairs Reserve Integration's study on the Reserve Component Travel Pay.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(a)(1) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. Seating is on a first-come, first-served basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Mr. Alex Sabol, the Designated Federal Officer, no later than 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 12, 2017, as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to make arrangements for a Pentagon escort, if necessary. Public attendees requiring escort should arrive at the Pentagon Metro Entrance at 12:30 p.m. to provide sufficient time to complete security screening to attend the beginning of the Open Meeting at 1:00 p.m. on December 13. To complete the security screening, please be prepared to present two forms of identification. One must be a picture identification card. In accordance with section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the portion of this meeting scheduled to occur from 8:10 a.m. to 12:05 p.m. will be closed to the public. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), in coordination with the Department of Defense FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this portion of the meeting will be closed to the public because it is likely to disclose classified matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1).

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of the FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, interested persons may submit written statements to the RFPB about its approved agenda or at any time on the RFPB's mission. Written statements should be submitted to the RFPB's Designated Federal Officer at the address, email, or facsimile number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. If statements pertain to a specific topic being discussed at the planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five (5) business days prior to the meeting in question. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the RFPB until its next meeting. The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submitted written statements and provide copies to all the RFPB members before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. Please note that since the RFPB operates under the provisions of the FACA, all submitted comments and public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, including, but not limited to, being posted on the RFPB's Web site.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25431 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Detroit Dam Downstream Passage Project AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Portland District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The purpose of this EIS is to analyze effects to the human environment associated with the Corps efforts to enhance juvenile passage of Endangered Species Act (ESA) listed Upper Willamette River (UWR) spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead through Detroit Dam to reaches downstream of the dam; and to modify temperatures in the North Santiam and main stem Santiam Rivers, below Detroit Dam, with the objective of replicating pre-reservoir water temperatures. These actions are part of the Corps implementation of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2008 Biological Opinions (BiOp) for the continued operations and maintenance of the Willamette Valley Project. The Corps will serve as the lead federal agency for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

    DATES:

    Written comments for consideration in the development of the scope of the NEPA EIS are due to the addresses below no later than January 8, 2018. Comments may also be made at the public scoping meetings as noted below.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mailed comments may be sent to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, P.O. Box 2946, Attn: CENWP-PM-E, Portland, Oregon 97208-2946. Email comments to: [email protected] All comments and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released to the public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions regarding the Project, the EIS, or special accommodations for scoping process participation, please contact Kelly Janes, Environmental Resources Specialist; (503) 808-4771.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Project Background. The Corps' Detroit and Big Cliff dams and reservoirs are located in Linn and Marion Counties in the Oregon Cascades, in the North Santiam River sub-basin of the Willamette River basin near the city of Detroit, Oregon. The Detroit and Big Cliff dams, both completed in 1953, form a complete barrier to upstream fish passage. This lack of access for UWR spring Chinook salmon and steelhead to the high-quality habitat upstream is a critical limiting factor for the recovery and contributes to a high or very high extinction risk. Additionally, the dam poses a significant barrier and risk for downstream migrating juvenile fish. Finally, construction and operation of Detroit Dam has altered the pre-dam seasonal thermal regimes in the North Santiam River. Detroit Dam operations have resulted in cooler downstream water temperatures in the spring and summer then were experienced before the dam was built. Detroit Dam operations also result in warmer downstream temperatures in the fall and winter compared to pre-dam conditions. The altered temperature regime negatively affects the productivity of UWR spring Chinook salmon and winter steelhead in the lower North Santiam River, and has been identified as one of the most critical limiting factors for species recovery.

    Detroit and Big Cliff dams and reservoirs are included in the 13 multipurpose dams and reservoirs the Corps operates and maintains in the Willamette River Basin in Oregon, collectively referred to as the Willamette Project. The listing of several species under the ESA required the Corps to perform an assessment of the effects of operating the Willamette Project on listed species. Based on this assessment, the NMFS released a BiOp in 2008, which identified measures that it believed would avoid jeopardizing the existence of ESA listed fish in the Willamette basin, referred to as measures in the Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA). Measure 4.12.3 of the RPA requires downstream fish passage at Detroit Dam. Measure 5.2 of the RPA requires the minimization of water quality effects associated with operations of Detroit and Big Cliff dams by making structural modifications or major operational changes. The BiOp acknowledges that, if feasible, there might be cost-savings and reduced effects if addressing both RPA measures were be achieved through one construction project.

    Proposed Project. The Corps is developing a project to provide downstream juvenile fish passage for UWR Chinook and steelhead as well as to provide temperature control at Detroit Dam. The purposes of the proposed project is to enhance juvenile passage of UWR spring Chinook and winter steelhead on the North Santiam to reaches downstream of the dams; and to modify temperatures on the North Santiam and main stem Santiam Rivers, below Detroit Dam, with the objective of replicating pre-reservoir water temperatures for UWR spring Chinook and UWR winter steelhead habitat.

    Alternatives. The project will be developed in a manner that is consistent with sound engineering practice and meets all applicable federal environmental laws. In addition to the No Action Alternative, in which case dam operations will continue in the absence of the Project, structural and operational alternatives considered will include, but are not limited to: Optimizing operations, upgrading current structures, and constructing new structures adjacent to the Detroit Dam in Detroit Reservoir. Additional alternatives could be developed during the scoping and evaluation process.

    Scoping Process/Public Involvement. The Corps invites all affected federal, state, and local agencies, affected Native American Tribes, other interested parties, and the general public to participate in the NEPA process during development of the EIS. The purpose of the public scoping process is to provide information to the public, narrow the scope of analysis to significant environmental issues, serve as a mechanism to solicit agency and public input on alternatives and issues of concern, and ensure full and open participation in scoping of the Draft EIS. Two public scoping meetings are scheduled for December 2017. The specific dates, times, and locations of the meetings are provided below.

    Upon completion of the scoping process, the Draft EIS will be circulated for public review and comment. The Corps expects to release the Draft EIS for public review and comment in 2019. The Corps will issue a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register announcing the release of the Draft EIS for public comment through the local news media. Documents and other important information related to the EIS will be available for review on the Corps' project Web site.

    Public Scoping Meetings:

    • Thursday, December 14, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the South Salem High School Library located at 1910 Church Street SE., Salem, OR 97302.

    • Tuesday, December 19, 2017, 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Gates Fire Hall located at 140 East Sorbin Street, Gates, Oregon 97346.

    Additional information related to the public scoping process will be provided through advertisements placed in regional newspapers of general circulation, Public Notice, and on the project Web site at https://nwp.usace.army.mil/Willamette/Detroit/fish-passage/.

    Aaron L. Dorf, Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Commander.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25398 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0143] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools Nominee Presentation Form AGENCY:

    Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-0143. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 216-32, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Andrea Falken, 202-503-8985.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools Nominee Presentation Form.

    OMB Control Number: 1860-0509.

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

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

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,443.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 6,021.

    Abstract: U.S. Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools (ED-GRS) is a recognition award that honors schools, districts, and postsecondary institutions that are exemplary in three Pillars: (1) Reducing environmental impact and costs, including waste, water, energy use and alternative transportation; (2) improving the health and wellness of students and staff, including environmental health of premises, nutrition and fitness; and (3) providing effective sustainability education, including STEM, civic skills and green career pathways.

    The award is a tool to encourage state education agencies, stakeholders and higher education officials to consider matters of facilities, health and environment comprehensively and in coordination with state health, environment and energy agency counterparts. In order to be selected for federal recognition, schools, districts and postsecondary institutions must be high achieving in all three of the above Pillars, not just one area. Schools, districts, colleges and universities apply to their state education authorities. State authorities can submit up to six nominees to ED, documenting achievement in all three Pillars. This information is used at the Department to select the awardees.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25394 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9036-3] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa/.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Filed 11/13/2017 Through 11/17/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9 Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-nepa-public/action/eis/search.

    EIS No. 20170229, Final, USACE, AZ, ADOPTION—South Mountain Freeway (Loop 202), Contact: Jesse Rice (602) 230-6854. EIS No. 20170230, Final, BPA, WA, Melvin R. Sampson Hatchery, Yakima Basin Coho Project, Review Period Ends: 12/26/2017, Contact: Dave Goodman (503) 230-4764. EIS No. 20170231, Final, USFS, OR, Antelope Grazing Allotments AMP, Review Period Ends: 01/08/2018, Contact: Benjamin Goodin (541) 947-6251. EIS No. 20170232, Draft, BR, CA, Pure Water San Diego Program, North City Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/08/2018, Contact: Doug McPherson (951) 695-5310. EIS No. 20170233, Draft Supplement, AFRH, DC, Armed Forces Retirement Home Master Plan Update, Comment Period Ends: 01/15/2018, Contact: Justin Seffens (202) 541-7548. Amended Notices EIS No. 20170154, Draft, USACE, IL, The Great Lakes and Mississippi River Interbasin Study—Brandon Road, Contact: Andrew Leichty (309) 794-5399.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 09/15/2017; Extending Comment Period from 11/16/2017 to 12/08/2017.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Kelly Knight, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25430 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX, OMB 3060-0430] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before December 26, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control No.: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Sections 15.37(k), 74.851(k), and 74.851(l), Consumer Disclosure and Labeling.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, and Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,100 respondents; 127,500 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement (disclosure and labeling requirement).

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302a, 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 31,875 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,625,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No information is requested that would require assurance of confidentiality.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a new collection after this 60-day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance from them.

    On August 11, 2015, the Commission released the Wireless Microphones Report and Order in Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions GN Docket No. 14-166 and GN Docket No. 12-268. In this Report and Order, the Commission established certain consumer disclosure and labeling requirements in Sections 15.37(k), 74.851(k), and 74.851(l) relating to wireless microphones and wireless video assist devices; these requirements apply to persons who manufacture, sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease, wireless microphone or video assist devices—either (a) wireless microphones or other low power auxiliary stations (“wireless microphones”) or video assist devices, authorized pursuant to Part 74, Subpart H of the Commission's rules, or (b) unlicensed wireless microphones authorized pursuant to § 15.236—to the extent that these devices have been designed to operate on frequencies that are licensed to 600 MHz service band licensees that obtain licenses in the broadcast television incentive auction. The Commission directed that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, following the close of the incentive auction, provide specific language to be used in consumer disclosure. The incentive auction closed on April 13, 2017.

    On July 24, 2017, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology of the Federal Communications Commission released an Order, Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations, Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules for Unlicensed Operations in the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Band, 600 MHz Guard Bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, and, Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules for Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the Repurposed 600 MHz Band and 600 MHz Duplex Gap, Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Order, GN Docket No. 14-166, ET Docket No. 14-165, and GN Docket No. 12-268. In this Order, the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and the Office of Engineering and Technology provided the specific language that must be used in the consumer disclosure required by the Commission in its 2015 Wireless Microphones Report and Order, as set forth in Sections 15.37(k) and 74.851(l) of the Commission's rules. As the Order explains, the consumer disclosure requirement is applicable to persons who manufacture, sell, lease, or offer for sale or lease, wireless microphone or video assist devices to the extent that these devices are capable of operating on the specific frequencies associated with the 600 MHz service band (617-652 MHz/663-698 MHz). This disclosure also informs consumers that, consistent with the Commission's decision in the 2015 Wireless Microphones Report and Order, wireless microphone users must cease any wireless microphone operations in the 600 MHz service band no later than July 13, 2020, and that in many instances they may be required to cease use of these devices earlier if their use has the potential to cause harmful interference to 600 MHz service licensees' wireless operations in the band.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0430.

    Title: Section 1.1206, Permit-but-Disclose Proceedings.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, local, or tribal governments.

    Number of Respondent and Responses: 11,500 respondents; 34,500 responses.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in sections 4(i) and (j), 303(r), and 409 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and (j), 303(r), and 409.

    Estimated Time per Response: 45 minutes (0.75 hours).

    Total Annual Burden: 25,875 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Consistent with the Commission's rules on confidential treatment of submissions, under 47 CFR 0.459, a presenter may request confidential treatment of ex parte presentations. In addition, the Commission will permit parties to remove metadata containing confidential or privileged information, and the Commission will also not require parties to file electronically ex parte notices that contain confidential information. The Commission will, however, require a redacted version to be filed electronically at the same time the paper filing is submitted, and that the redacted version must be machine-readable whenever technically possible.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules, under 47 CFR 1.1206, require that a public record be made of ex parte presentations (i.e., written presentations not served on all parties to the proceeding or oral presentations as to which all parties have not been given notice and an opportunity to be present) to decision-making personnel in “permit-but-disclose” proceedings, such as notice-and-comment rulemakings and declaratory ruling proceedings.

    On February 2, 2011, the FCC released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, GC Docket Number 10-43, FCC 11-11, which amended and reformed the Commission's rules on ex parte presentations (47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)) made in the course of Commission rulemakings and other permit-but-disclose proceedings. The modifications to the existing rules adopted in this Report and Order require that parties file more descriptive summaries of their ex parte contacts, by ensuring that other parties and the public have an adequate opportunity to review and respond to information submitted ex parte, and by improving the FCC's oversight and enforcement of the ex parte rules. The modified ex parte rules which contain information collection requirements which OMB approved on December 6, 2011, are as follows: (1) Ex parte notices will be required for all oral ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings, not just for those presentations that involve new information or arguments not already in the record; (2) If an oral ex parte presentation is limited to material already in the written record, the notice must contain either a succinct summary of the matters discussed or a citation to the page or paragraph number in the party's written submission(s) where the matters discussed can be found; (3) Notices for all ex parte presentations must include the name of the person(s) who made the ex parte presentation as well as a list of all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the presentation was made; (4) Notices of ex parte presentations made outside the Sunshine period must be filed within two business days of the presentation; (5) The Sunshine period will begin on the day (including business days, weekends, and holidays) after issuance of the Sunshine notice, rather than when the Sunshine Agenda is issued (as the current rules provide); (6) If an ex parte presentation is made on the day the Sunshine notice is released, an ex parte notice must be submitted by the next business day, and any reply would be due by the following business day. If a permissible ex parte presentation is made during the Sunshine period (under an exception to the Sunshine period prohibition), the ex parte notice is due by the end of the same day on which the presentation was made, and any reply would need to be filed by the next business day. Any reply must be in writing and limited to the issues raised in the ex parte notice to which the reply is directed; (7) Commissioners and agency staff may continue to request ex parte presentations during the Sunshine period, but these presentations should be limited to the specific information required by the Commission; (8) Ex parte notices must be submitted electronically in machine-readable format. PDF images created by scanning a paper document may not be submitted, except in cases in which a word-processing version of the document is not available. Confidential information may continue to be submitted by paper filing, but a redacted version must be filed electronically at the same time the paper filing is submitted. An exception to the electronic filing requirement will be made in cases in which the filing party claims hardship. The basis for the hardship claim must be substantiated in the ex parte filing; (9) To facilitate stricter enforcement of the ex parte rules, the Enforcement Bureau is authorized to levy forfeitures for ex parte rule violations; (10) Copies of electronically filed ex parte notices must also be sent electronically to all staff and Commissioners present at the ex parte meeting so as to enable them to review the notices for accuracy and completeness. Filers may be asked to submit corrections or further information as necessary for compliance with the rules; and (11) Parties making permissible ex parte presentations in restricted proceedings must conform and clarify rule changes when filing an ex parte notice with the Commission.

    The information is used by parties to permit-but-disclose proceedings, including interested members of the public, to respond to the arguments made and data offered in the presentations. The responses may then be used by the Commission in its decision-making.

    The availability of the ex parte materials ensures that the Commission's decisional processes are fair, impartial, and comport with the concept of due process in that all interested parties can know of and respond to the arguments made to the decision-making officials.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25414 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1208] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 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.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 23, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC 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: 3060-1208.

    Title: Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households, business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions and State, local or Tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents: 1,350 respondents; 3,597 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 303, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 6003, 6213, and 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 201, 301, 303, 309, 1403, 1433, and 1455(a).

    Total Annual Burden: 3,535 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection may affect individuals or households. However, the information collection consists of third-party disclosures in which the Commission has no direct involvement. Personally identifiable information (PII) is not being collected by, made available to, or made accessible by the Commission. There are no additional impacts under the Privacy Act.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: No known confidentiality between third parties.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection will be submitted for extension to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) after the 60-day comment period to obtain the full three-year clearance. The Commission has not changed the collection, which includes disclosure requirements pertaining to Subpart CC of Part 1 of the Commission's rules. This Subpart was adopted to implement and enforce Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. Section 6409(a) provides, in part, that “a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.” 47 U.S.C. 1455(a)(1). In Subpart CC, the Commission adopted definitions of ambiguous terms, procedural requirements, and remedies to provide guidance to all stakeholders on the proper interpretation of the provision and to enforce its requirements, reducing delays in the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications and facilitating the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure.

    The following are the information collection requirements in connection with Subpart CC of Part 1 of the Commission's rules:

    • 47 CFR 1.40001(c)(3)(i)—To toll the 60-day review timeframe on grounds that an application is incomplete, the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Such delineated information is limited to documents or information meeting the standard under paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1.140001.

    • 47 CFR 1.140001(c)(3)(iii)—Following a supplemental submission from the applicant, the State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant in writing if the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the State or local government's original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe for review is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices of incompleteness pursuant to the procedures identified in paragraph (c)(3). Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness.

    • 47 CFR 1.140001(c)(4)—If a request is deemed granted because of a failure to timely approve or deny the request, the deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period has expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.

    These collections are necessary to effectuate the rule changes that implement and enforce the requirements of Section 6409(a).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25410 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0084] Information Collection Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has received Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval, via a non-substantive change request, of changes to information collection requirements associated with FCC Form 323-E (Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations), which the Commission adopted in the Order on Reconsideration, FCC 17-42, published at 82 FR 21718, May 10, 2017. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, and no person is required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. Comments concerning the accuracy of the burden estimates and any suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0084.

    OMB Approval Date: May 31, 2017.

    OMB Expiration Date: November 30, 2019.

    Title: Ownership Report for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations, FCC Form 323-E; Section 73.3615, Ownership Reports.

    Form Number: FCC Form 323-E.

    Respondents: Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,636 respondents; 2,636 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 1.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; biennial reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for these collections are contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 257, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, and 310.

    Total Annual Burden: 3,867 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $2,319,900.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: FCC Form 323-E collects two types of information from respondents: PII in the form of names, addresses, job titles and demographic information; and FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs).

    The FCC/MB-1 SORN, which was approved on November 28, 2016 (81 FR 72047), covers the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 323-E, as required under the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Commission is drafting a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the Commission has in place to protect the PII.

    FRNs are assigned to applicants who complete FCC Form 160 (OMB Control No. 3060-0917). Form 160 currently requires applicants for FRNs to provide their Taxpayer Information Number (TIN) and/or Social Security Number (SSN). The FCC's electronic Commission Registration System (CORES) then provides each registrant with a CORES FRN, which identifies the registrant in his/her subsequent dealings with the FCC. This is done to protect the individual's privacy. Form 160 requires applicants for Restricted Use FRNs to provide an alternative set of identifying information that does not include the individual's full SSN: His/her full name, residential address, date of birth, and only the last four digits of his/her SSN. Restricted Use FRNs may be used in lieu of CORES FRNs only on broadcast ownership reports and only for individuals (not entities) reported as attributable interest holders. The Commission maintains a SORN, FCC/OMD-25, Financial Operations Information System (FOIS), to cover the collection, purpose(s), storage, safeguards, and disposal of the PII that individual respondents may submit on Form 160. Form 160 includes a privacy statement to inform applicants (respondents) of the Commission's need to obtain the information and the protections that the FCC has in place to protect the PII.

    Privacy Act: The Commission is drafting a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the personally identifiable information (PII) that is covered by the system of records notice (SORN), FCC/MB-1, Ownership Reports for Commercial and Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Upon completion of the PIA, it will be posted on the FCC's Web site, as required by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum, M-03-22 (September 22, 2003).

    Needs and Uses: On January 20, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order, Second Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket Nos. 07-294, 10-103, and MD Docket No. 10-234 (323 and 323-E Order). The 323 and 323-E Order refines the collection of data reported on FCC Form 323, Ownership Report for Commercial Broadcast Stations, and FCC Form323-E, Ownership Report for Noncommercial Broadcast Stations. Specifically, the 323 and 323-E Order implements a Restricted Use FRN (RUFRN) within the Commission's Registration System (CORES) that individuals may use solely for the purpose of broadcast ownership report filings; eliminates the availability of the Special Use FRN (SUFRN) for broadcast station ownership reports, except in very limited circumstances; prescribes revisions to Form 323-E that conform the reporting requirements for noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations more closely to those for commercial stations; and makes a number of significant changes to the Commission's reporting requirements that reduce the filing burdens on broadcasters, streamline the process, and improve data quality.

    On April 21, 2017, the Commission released an Order on Reconsideration in MB Docket No. 07-294 and MD Docket No. 10-23 (323-E Reconsideration Order). The 323-E Reconsideration Order expands the option to use SUFRNs on Form 323-E. This action addresses several petitions for reconsideration of the 323 and 323-E Order and properly balances the Commission's need to improve the integrity and usability of its broadcast ownership data with the concerns raised in the petitions for reconsideration.

    Licensees of noncommercial educational AM, FM, and television broadcast stations must file FCC Form 323-E every two years. Pursuant to the new filing procedures adopted in the 323 and 323-E Order, Form 323-E shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. Form 323 shall be filed by December 1 in all odd-numbered years. On September 1, 2017, the Commission's Media Bureau released an Order in MB Docket No. 07-294, DA 17-813, postponing the opening of the 2017 biennial filing window for the submission of broadcast ownership reports on FCC Forms 323 and 323-E and extending the 2017 filing deadline. Biennial Ownership Reports shall provide information accurate as of October 1 of the year in which the Report is filed.

    In addition, Licensees and Permittees of noncommercial educational AM, FM, and television stations must file Form 323-E following the consummation of a transfer of control or an assignment of a noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station license or construction permit; a Permittee of a new noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station must file Form 323-E within 30 days after the grant of the construction permit; and a Permittee of a new noncommercial educational AM, FM, or television station must file Form 323-E to update the initial report or to certify the continuing accuracy and completeness of the previously filed report on the date that the Permittee applies for a license to cover the construction permit.

    In the case of organizational structures that include holding companies or other forms of indirect ownership, a separate Form 323-E must be filed for each entity in the organizational structure that has an attributable interest in the Licensee or Permittee.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25409 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Open Commission Meeting, Thursday, November 16, 2017 November 9, 2017.

    The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, November 16, 2017 which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in Room TW-C305, at 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC.

    Item No. Bureau Subject 1 CONSUMER & GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Title: Advanced Methods to Target and Eliminate Unlawful Robocalls (CG Docket No. 17-59)).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order that would expressly authorize voice service providers to block certain types of robocalls that falsely appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make outgoing calls. It also would prohibit voice service providers from blocking 911 calls under these rules, encourage voice service providers to provide a mechanism to allow subscribers whose legitimate calls are blocked in error to stop such blocking, and clarify that providers may exclude calls blocked under these rules from their call completion reports.
  • 2 OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY, INTERNATIONAL AND WIRELESS TELE-COMMUNICATIONS Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services (GN Docket No. 14-177); Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands (IB Docket No. 15-256); Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services (WT Docket No. 10-112); Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocations of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations (IB Docket No 97-95). Summary: The Commission will consider a Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order that would make available 1,700 MHz of additional high-frequency spectrum for flexible terrestrial wireless use; provide 4 gigahertz for satellite use; and adopt, refine, or affirm a number of service rules to promote robust deployment in these bands, and a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on certain related earth station, buildout, and licensing issues. 3 WIRELINE TELE-COMMUNICATIONS Title: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (WT Docket No. 17-79). Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order to eliminate the requirement for historic preservation review where utility poles are replaced with substantially identical poles that can support antennas or other wireless communications equipment, and to consolidate the Commission's historic preservation review rules into a single rule. 4 WIRELINE COMPETITION Title: Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment (WC Docket No. 17-84). Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order that will revise and seek comment on further changes to the Commission's pole attachment rules, network change disclosure processes, and section 214(a) discontinuance processes to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote broadband deployment, and will seek comment on taking targeted actions to facilitate rebuilding and repairing broadband infrastructure after natural disasters. 5 WIRELINE COMPETITION Title: Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers (WC Docket No. 17-287); Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization (WC Docket No. 11-42); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support (WC Docket No. 09-197). Summary: The Commission will consider a Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry to adopt and propose measures to effectively and efficiently bridge the digital divide for Lifeline subscribers and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program. 6 MEDIA Title: 2014 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (MB Docket No. 14-50); 2010 Quadrennial Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission's Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (MB Docket No. 09-182); Promoting Diversification of Ownership In the Broadcasting Services (MB Docket No. 07-294); Rules and Policies Concerning Attribution of Joint Sales Agreements in Local Television Markets (MB Docket No. 04-256); Rules and Policies to Promote New Entry and Ownership Diversity in the Broadcasting Services (MB Docket No. 17-289). Summary: The Commission will consider an Order on Reconsideration and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that updates the Commission's broadcast ownership and attribution rules to reflect the current media marketplace, denies various other requests for reconsideration, finds that the Commission will adopt an Incubator Program to promote ownership diversity, and seeks comment on how to structure and administer such a program. 7 MEDIA Title: FCC Form 325 Data Collection (MB Docket No. 17-290); Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative (MB Docket No. 17-105. Summary: The Commission will consider a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on whether to eliminate Form 325, Annual Report of Cable Television Systems, or, in the alternative, on ways to modernize and streamline the form. 8 MEDIA
  • AND OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
  • Title: Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard (GN Docket No. 16-142).
  • Summary: The Commission will consider a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking authorizing television broadcasters to use the Next Generation television transmission standard (ATSC 3.0) on a voluntary, market-driven basis.
  • The meeting site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Sign language interpreters, open captioning, and assistive listening devices will be provided on site. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. In your request, include a description of the accommodation you will need and a way we can contact you if we need more information. Last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to: [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the Internet from the FCC Live Web page at www.fcc.gov/live.

    For a fee this meeting can be viewed live over George Mason University's Capitol Connection. The Capitol Connection also will carry the meeting live via the Internet. To purchase these services, call (703) 993-3100 or go to www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25412 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0633 and 3060-0727] Information Collections Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 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.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 23, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC 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: 3060-0633.

    Title: Sections 73.1230, 74.165, 74.432, 74.564, 74.664, 74.765, 74.832, 74.1265 Posting or Filing of Station Licenses.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal Government and State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,584 respondents and 2,584 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.083 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Responds: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Section 154(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 214 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $24,860.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in this collection are as follows:

    47 CFR 73.1230 requires that the station license and any other instrument of station authorization for an AM, FM or TV station be posted in a conspicuous place at the place the licensee considers to be the principal control point of the transmitter.

    47 CFR 74.165 requires that the instrument of authorization for an experimental broadcast station be available at the transmitter site.

    47 CFR 74.432(j) (remote pickup broadcast station) and 47 CFR 74.832(j) (low power auxiliary station) require that the license of a remote pickup broadcast/low power auxiliary station shall be retained in the licensee's files, posted at the transmitter, or posted at the control point of the station. These sections also require the licensee to forward the station license to the FCC in the case of permanent discontinuance of the station.

    47 CFR 74.564 (aural broadcast auxiliary stations) requires that the station license and any other instrument of authorization be posted in the room where the transmitter is located, or if operated by remote control, at the operating position.

    47 CFR 74.664 (television broadcast auxiliary stations) requires that the station license and any other instrument of authorization be posted in the room where the transmitter is located.

    47 CFR Sections 74.765 (low power TV, TV translator and TV booster) and 47 CFR 74.1265 (FM translator stations and FM booster stations) require that the station license and any other instrument of authorization be retained in the station's files. In addition, the call sign of the station, together with the name, address and telephone number of the licensee or the local representative of the licensee, and the name and address of the person and place where the station records are maintained, shall be displayed at the transmitter site on the structure supporting the transmitting antenna.

    47 CFR 74.832(j) (low power auxiliary stations) requires that the license shall be retained in the licensee's files at the address shown on the authorization, posted at the transmitter, or posted at the control point of the station.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0727.

    Title: Section 73.213, Grandfathered Short-Spaced Stations.

    Form Number(s): Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 15 respondents; 15 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-0.83 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 Section 154(i), 55(c)(1), 302 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $3,750.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement contained in 47 CFR 73.213 requires licensees of grandfathered short-spaced FM stations seeking to modify or relocate their stations to provide a showing demonstrating that there is no increase in either the total predicted interference area or the associated population (caused or received) with respect to all grandfathered stations or increase the interference caused to any individual stations. Applicants must demonstrate that any new area predicted to lose service as a result of interference has adequate service remaining. In addition, licensees are required to serve a copy of any application for co-channel or first-adjacent channel stations proposing predicted interference caused in any area where interference is not currently predicted to be caused upon the licensee(s) of the affected short-spaced station(s). Commission staff uses the data to determine if the public interest will be served and that existing levels of interference will not be increased to other licensed stations. Providing copies of application(s) to affected licensee(s) will enable potentially affected parties to examine the proposals and provide them an opportunity to file informal objections against such applications.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25407 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1170] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 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.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before January 23, 2018. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the PRA of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC 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: 3060-1170.

    Title: Improving Spectrum Efficiency Through Flexible Channel Spacing and Bandwidth Utilization for Economic Area-based 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licensees—Notice Requirement Section 90.209.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 24 respondents; 24 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-4 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, and 308 unless otherwise noted.

    Total Annual Burden: 20 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $46,000.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 90.209(b)(7) require EA-based 800 MHz SMR licensees authorized to exceed the standard channel spacing and authorized bandwidth under Section 90.209(b)(5) to provide at least 30 days written notice prior to initiating service in the 813.5-824/858.5-869 MHz band to every 800 MHz public safety licensee with a base station in the affected National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) region, and every 800 MHz public safety licensee within 113 kilometers (70 miles) of the affected region.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25415 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0819] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before December 26, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0819.

    Title: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund.

    Form Numbers: FCC Form 555, FCC Form 481, FCC Form 497, FCC Form 5629, FCC Form 5630, FCC Form 5631.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households and business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 20,094,358 respondents; 23,954,123 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .0167 hours—250 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual, biennial, monthly, daily and on occasion reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 5, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Communications Act of 1996, as amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302.

    Total Annual Burden: 11,028,571 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $937,500.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The Commission completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for some of the information collection requirements contained in this collection. The PIA was published in the Federal Register at 82 FR 38686 on August 15, 2017. The PIA may be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some of the requirements contained in this information collection affect individuals or households, and thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. The FCC's system of records notice (SORN) associated with this collection is FCC/WCB-1, “Lifeline Program.”

    The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”). As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission published FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the Federal Register on August 15, 2017 (82 FR 38686).

    Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection after this comment period to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of revisions to this information collection.

    On April 27, 2016, the Commission released an order reforming its low-income universal service support mechanisms. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Report and Order, (Lifeline Third Reform Order). This revision implements the new forms for the Lifeline program for consumer enrollment and certification, recertification, and one-per household verification. These forms are intended for use as standard forms for all consumers and ETCs participating in the Lifeline program. This revision also implements the transition to payment of the Lifeline reimbursement to ETCs based on data from USAC's NLAD database. In the Lifeline Third Reform Order, the Commission directed USAC to propose improved methods of providing payment to Lifeline providers that will reduce costs and burdens to the Fund and to Lifeline providers. In addition, the Commission seeks to update the number of respondents for certain requirements contained in this information collection, thus increasing the total burden hours for some requirements and decreasing the total burden hours for other requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25411 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10337, Community First Bank—Chicago

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver) as Receiver for Community First Bank—Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed Receiver of Community First Bank—Chicago on February 4, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25210 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 7, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. J. Edgerton Pierson, Jr. and the Jim Pierson Revocable Grantor Trust, both of Shreveport, Louisiana; to retain voting shares of City Bancshares, Inc., Natchitoches, Louisiana; and Virginia T. Pierson, Mary Lou Pierson Brown, Phillip G. Brown, each of Natchitoches, Louisiana, Patricia Pierson McAlpine, Kingwood, Texas, and J. Edgerton Pierson, Jr.; as a group acting in concert to collectively retain voting shares of City Bancshares, Inc., Natchitoches, Louisiana and thereby, indirectly retain shares of City Bank & Trust Company, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 17, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25338 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM [Docket No. OP-1570] Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectations for Boards of Directors AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board).

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On August 9, 2017, the Board published in the Federal Register proposed guidance on supervisory expectations for boards of directors. To facilitate effective public comment on the proposal, the Board previously extended the comment period from October 10, 2017, to November 30, 2017. The Board has determined that an additional extension of the comment period until February 15, 2018, is appropriate. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the proposal and prepare their comments.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposal must be received on or before February 15, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the methods identified in the proposal. Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Hsu, Associate Director, (202) 912-4330, Michael Solomon, Associate Director, (202) 452-3502, Richard Naylor, Associate Director, (202) 728-5854, Division of Supervision and Regulation; Ben McDonough, Assistant General Counsel, (202) 452-2036, Scott Tkacz, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-2744, Keisha Patrick, Senior Counsel, (202) 452-3559, or Chris Callanan, Senior Attorney, (202) 452-3594, Legal Division, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551. For the hearing impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 9, 2017, the Board published in the Federal Register proposed guidance 1 on supervisory expectations for boards of directors of firms supervised by the Federal Reserve. The proposal addresses supervisory expectations for boards of directors of bank holding companies, savings and loan holding companies, state member banks, U.S. branches and agencies of foreign banking organizations, and systemically important nonbank financial companies designated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council for supervision by the Federal Reserve. For the largest domestic bank and savings and loan holding companies and systemically important nonbank financial companies, the proposal would establish attributes of effective boards centered on the board's core responsibilities, which support safety and soundness, and would provide the framework with which the Federal Reserve would evaluate the effectiveness of a firm's boards of directors. For all domestic bank and savings and loan holding companies, certain existing Federal Reserve Supervision and Regulation letters containing supervisory expectations for boards of directors would be revised or eliminated to more clearly distinguish a board's roles and responsibilities from those of senior management and allow boards to focus more of their time and resources on fulfilling their core responsibilities. The proposal stated that the comment period would close on October 10, 2017, which the Board previously extended to November 30, 2017.2

    1See “Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectation for Boards of Directors,” 82 FR 37219 (August 9, 2017).

    2See “Proposed Guidance on Supervisory Expectation for Boards of Directors,” 82 FR 47206 (October 11, 2017).

    An additional extension of the comment period will provide an opportunity for the public to understand the proposed division of responsibilities between the board, senior management, and business line management and comment on the provisions of the proposal and the questions posed by the Board. Therefore, the Board is extending the end of the comment period for the proposal from November 30, 2017, to February 15, 2018.

    By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Secretary of the Board under delegated authority, ovember 17, 2017. Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25372 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0155; Docket 2017-0053; Sequence 18] Information Collection; Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB) will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding prohibition of acquisition of products produced by forced or indentured child labor.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments identified by Information Collection 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number 9000-0155. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Mr. Poe/IC 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, in all correspondence related to this collection. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Zenaida Delgado, Procurement Analyst, Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, at 202-969-7207, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    This information collection complies with Executive Order 13126, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor. Executive Order 13126 requires that this prohibition be enforced within the Federal acquisition system, including a provision that requires the contractor to certify to the contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the contractor, has made a good faith effort to determine whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce, or manufacture any product furnished under the contract and that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is unaware of any such use of child labor.

    The information collection requirements of the Executive Order are evidenced via the certification requirements delineated at FAR 52.212-3 paragraph (i), and 52.222-18.

    DoD, GSA and NASA analyzed the FY 2017 data from the System for Award Management (SAM) to develop the estimated burden hours for this information collection.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 1,104.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,104.

    Hours per Response: 0.18.

    Total Burden Hours: 198.

    C. Public Comments

    Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the FAR, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the estimate of the burden of the information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0155, Prohibition of Acquisition of Products Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor, in all correspondence.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25429 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (BSC, OPHPR) AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (BSC, OPHPR), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through November 5, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Samuel L. Groseclose D.V.M., M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, CDC, HHS, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D44, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone 404/639-0637, [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25440 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee (BCCEDCAC); Correction

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection and Control Advisory Committee (BCCEDCAC); November 30, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST and December 1, 2017 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST which was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2017 Volume 82, Number 196, pages 47526-47527.

    The call-in number and passcode should read as follows: Call-in number, 1-800-779-5359; passcode: 9955772.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jameka Reese Blackmon, MBA, CMP, Designated Federal Officer, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F76, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717, (770) 488-4740; [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25437 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, BSC, NCIPC; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, BSC, NCIPC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through November 3, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gwendolyn H. Cattledge, Ph.D., M.S.E.H., Deputy Associate Director for Science, NCIPC, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F-63, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone (770) 488-1430. Email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25438 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID); Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972, that the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases (BSC, OID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period through October 31, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin Moseley, M.A.T., Designated Federal Officer, Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D10, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, telephone (404) 639-4461, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25439 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Phase Four of the National Action Plan To Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination; Coordination Among Federal Partners To Leverage HAI Prevention and Antibiotic Stewardship AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and the Federal Steering Committee for the Prevention of HAIs have developed a new phase of the National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination (HAI Action Plan). The first three phases of the HAI Action Plan meaningfully enhanced coordination of federal efforts to address HAIs by establishing a structure to regularly share best practices, resources, and lessons learned among federal partners. Given the pressing public health threat of antibiotic resistance and the need to maximize efficiency of federal activities, the Steering Committee recognized the opportunity to leverage this existing committee and network of participants to enhance the implementation of the CARB National Action Plan goal of slowing the emergence of antibiotic resistant bacteria and preventing the spread of resistant infections through antibiotic stewardship programs. Thus, Phase Four of the HAI Action Plan focuses on the importance of antibiotic stewardship to prevent HAIs, and specifically highlights the coordination between various health agencies. Recommendations within Phase Four align and reinforce the goals and objectives of the CARB National Action Plan. This update to the HAI Action Plan reaffirms a federal commitment to improving health care quality and protecting the health of all Americans. Phase Four is titled: Coordination among Federal Partners to Leverage HAI Prevention and Antibiotic Stewardship. The Steering Committee and the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion invite public and private professionals, organizations, and consumer representatives to provide comments on the most recent draft of Phase Four.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed Phase Four of the National Action Plan to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: Road Map to Elimination must be received no later than 5 p.m. on December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] (please indicate in the subject line: Phase Four: HAI Action Plan).

    Mail/Courier: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Attn: Division of Health Care Quality, Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite LL100, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna Gribble, Health Policy Fellow, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    HAIs are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality within the United States, and at any given time, approximately one in every 25 hospitalized patients has at least one HAI. This translates to approximately 1.7 million individuals each year. In 2008, the Department of Health and Human Services established the Steering Committee for the Prevention of HAIs. The Committee consists of senior-level leaders from across the Department including clinicians, scientists, and public health practitioners. In 2009, the first iteration of the HAI Action Plan was developed and focused on addressing high-priority HAI-related infections within acute care hospital settings. However, given the movement of patients between various health care settings, infection control and the prevention and elimination of HAIs could no longer be compartmentalized to any one type of facility. The Steering Committee decided to expand the scope of its activities to include additional settings and released a second phase of the HAI Action Plan in 2009 with three new areas of focus: HAIs in ambulatory surgical centers and end-stage renal disease facilities, as well as increasing influenza vaccination coverage among health care personnel. The Committee expanded the action plan yet again in 2013 with a third phase which included long-term care facilities. More recently, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the clear tie with health care-associated infections has led the Steering Committee to focus on antibiotic stewardship. In July 2016, the Steering Committee decided to develop Phase Four of the HAI Action Plan to cover the federal partners coordinated approach to preventing HAIs and implementing antibiotic stewardship initiatives and to describe the clear tie between these two health care quality concerns.

    Interested persons or organizations are invited to submit written comments in response to the proposed Phase Four of the HAI Action Plan. Written comments should not exceed more than two pages. The comments should reference the specific section of the document to which feedback refers. To be considered, the person or representative from an organization must self-identify and submit the written comments by close of business on December 26, 2017.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Don Wright, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, (Disease Prevention and Health Promotion).
    [FR Doc. 2017-25424 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Preparedness and Response Science Board AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that the National Preparedness and Response Science Board (NPRSB) will hold a public teleconference on December 7, 2017.

    DATES:

    The NPRSB meeting is December 7, 2017, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    We encourage members of the public to attend the teleconference. To register, send an email to [email protected] with “NPRSB Registration” in the subject line. Submit your comments to [email protected] or on the NPRSB Contact Form located at http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/nprsb/Pages/RFNBSBComments.aspx.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 319M of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-7f) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), HHS established the NPRSB. The Board shall provide expert advice and guidance to the HHS Secretary on scientific, technical, and other matters of special interest regarding current and future chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological agents, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate. The NPRSB may also provide advice and guidance to the HHS Secretary and/or the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) on other matters related to public health emergency preparedness and response.

    Background: The NPRSB public meeting on December 7, 2017, is dedicated to the deliberation and vote on the Future of the NPRSB Work Group Draft Letter to the ASPR. We will post modifications to the agenda on the NPRSB December 7, 2017, meeting Web site, which is located at https://www.phe.gov/nprsb.

    Availability of Materials: We will post all meeting materials prior to the meeting on the NPRSB December 7, 2017, meeting Web site located at https://www.phe.gov/nprsb.

    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Members of the public attend by teleconference via a toll-free call-in phone number, which is available on the NPRSB Web site at https://www.phe.gov/nprsb.

    We encourage members of the public to provide written comments that are relevant to the NPRSB teleconference prior to December 7, 2017. Send written comments by email to [email protected] with “NPRSB Public Comment” in the subject line. The NPRSB Chair will respond to all comments received by December 1, 2017, during the meeting.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Robert P. Kadlec, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25336 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Announcement of Meetings of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group AGENCY:

    Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in accordance with Section 2062 of the 21st Century Cures Act, announces the inaugural meetings of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (Working Group). For these first meetings, Working Group members will focus on plans to submit a report to the Secretary of HHS and Congress that is due December 2018. The report will address a number of issues related to tick-borne diseases, including: Ongoing research; advances in research; Federal activities; gaps in research; the Working Group's meetings; and the comments received by the Working Group. The report will also include any recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Planning will include developing plans to solicit stakeholder input and establish subcommittees. Working Group members will also determine how and when future meetings will be conducted.

    DATES:

    December 11, 2017, from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, and December 12, 2017 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201; via webcast at: https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Berger, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services; via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public may attend the meetings in person or via webcast at https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/index.html.

    In-person attendance at the meetings is limited to space available; therefore preregistration for public members is advisable and can be accomplished by registering at http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?llr=zz7zptzab&oeidk=a07edrodfu088eae0cf by Friday, December 8, 2017. On the day of the meetings, seating will be provided first to persons who have preregistered. People who have not preregistered will be accommodated on a first come, first served basis if additional seats are still available 10 minutes before the meetings start. Non-U.S. citizens who plan to attend in person are required to provide additional information and must notify the Working Group support staff via email at [email protected] before November 30, 2017. Members of the public who wish to attend the meetings should enter from Independence Avenue. Please allow extra time to get through security.

    The Working Group invites public comment on issues related to the Working Group's charge. It may be provided in-person at the meetings or in writing. Persons who wish to provide public comment in person should submit a request to do so via email at [email protected] on or before December 1, 2017. In-person comments will be limited to three minutes each to accommodate as many speakers as possible. A total of 60 minutes will be allocated to public comment and may be divided between the two days of meetings. If more requests are received than can be accommodated, speakers will be randomly selected. The nature of the comments will not be considered in making this selection.

    Public comment may also be provided in writing only. Individuals who would like to provide written public comment should send their comments to [email protected] on or before December 6, 2017.

    Meeting information is available at the group's Web page: https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/index.html or by contacting the Working Group via email at [email protected] to request additional information.

    Purpose of Meetings: Working Group members will focus on plans to submit a report to the Secretary of HHS and Congress that is due December 2018. The report will address a number of issues related to tick-borne diseases, including: Ongoing research; advances in research; Federal activities; gaps in research; the Working Group's meetings; and the comments received by the Working Group. The report will also include any recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Planning will include developing plans to solicit stakeholder input and establish subcommittees. Working Group members will also determine how and when future meetings will be conducted.

    Background and Authority: The Tick-Borne Disease Working Group was established on August 10, 2017, in accordance with Section 2062 of the 21st Century Cures Act, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., as amended, to provide expertise and review all HHS efforts related to tick-borne diseases to help ensure interagency coordination and minimize overlap, examine research priorities, and identify and address unmet needs. The Working Group will submit a report to the Secretary of HHS and Congress on issues related to tick-borne diseases, including: Ongoing research: Advances in research: Federal activities; gaps in research; the Working Group's meetings; and the comments by the Working Group.

    Structure, Membership, and Operation: The Working Group consists of 14 members selected to represent a diverse range of stakeholder perspectives. Seven members were nominated and selected from the public, and seven members, or their designees, represent federal agencies doing this work. A roster of Working Group members is available at the Working Group's Web page: https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/index.html.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Richard Wolitski, Director, Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy, Designated Federal Officer, Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25425 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health NIH Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in Obesity AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will host a workshop about Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in Obesity on December 5-6, 2017. The workshop is free and open to the public.

    DATES:

    December 5, 2017 from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. and December 6, 2017 from 8:15 a.m. to 1:20 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will be held at the NIH, Natcher Conference Center, Building 45, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892. Registration and workshop information are available on the NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) Web site at https://prevention.nih.gov/P2PObesity.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information concerning this workshop, contact Kate Winseck at [email protected], 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 2B03, MSC 7523, Bethesda, MD 20892-7523; Telephone: 301-827-5561; FAX: 301-480-7660.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Obesity is a major contributor to serious health conditions in children and adults. The prevalence of obesity in the United States and globally has grown rapidly in the last three decades; thus, there is a pressing need to help people achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

    Obesity and obesity-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancers contribute to increased morbidity and mortality across the lifespan, resulting in a significant public health and economic burden. In 2008, the medical costs in the United States for individuals with obesity were $1,429 higher than for those with normal weight, resulting in an estimated annual medical cost of $147 billion (CDC).

    Much is already known about obesity, including many of its proximate causes:

    • Poor-quality diet

    • Overconsumption of calories

    • Lack of physical activity

    • Excessive sedentary time

    However, because multiple factors (lifestyle, socioeconomics, the environment, etc.) contribute to obesity, it remains an exceedingly complex condition to study.

    Major gaps exist in our understanding of appropriate and effective societal and systems changes to achieve a healthier energy balance (intake [calories] vs. output [activity]) for individuals. In part, these gaps are related to the amount of research completed to date and to methodological challenges, which range from measuring environmental influences on the causes of obesity to designing and implementing practical and rigorous evaluations of natural experiments. Studies of natural experiments can allow insights into the effects that programs, interventions, or policies have on health-related outcomes including obesity. In obesity prevention research, these include:

    • Effects of investments in transportation infrastructure such as light rail or bike share programs

    • Changes in the food environment, such as construction of new food retail outlets in food deserts or support for farmers' markets

    • Consequences of economic policies such as taxes and subsidies, particularly those addressing low-income and at-risk populations

    • Changes within organizations such as schools or workplaces

    • Changes in health care systems related to prevention of obesity.

    Evaluating natural experiments in obesity prevention has seen growing support and interest. However, incomplete development and lack of standardization in study designs, data collection methods, and statistical approaches present significant challenges to this research. Closing gaps in obesity prevention research has the potential to advance the field and effect change in obesity prevention nationally.

    The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is engaging in a rigorous assessment of the available scientific evidence to better understand appropriate, high-quality natural experiment research designs in the field of obesity prevention and control. The NIH Office of Disease Prevention (ODP); National Cancer Institute (NCI); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) are sponsoring the Pathways to Prevention Workshop: Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in Obesity on December5-6, 2017, in Bethesda, Maryland. The workshop seeks to clarify the following questions:

    1. What population-based data sources have been used in studies of how programs, policies, or built environment changes affect or are associated with obesity prevention and control outcomes?

    2. What methods have been used to link different population-based data sources?

    3. What obesity measures, dietary and physical behaviors, and other outcomes have been assessed in studies of how programs, policies, or built environment changes affect or are associated with obesity prevention and control?

    4. Which experimental and non-experimental methods have been used in studies of how programs, policies, or built environment changes affect or are associated with obesity prevention and control outcomes?

    5. What are the risks of bias in studies of how programs, policies, or built environment changes affect or are associated with obesity prevention and control outcomes?

    6. What methodological/analytic advances (e.g., data system features, approaches to linking data sources, or analytic methods) would help to strengthen efforts to estimate the effect of programs, policies, or built environment changes on obesity prevention and control?

    During the 11/2-day workshop, experts discuss the state of the science, an evidence report prepared by an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center is presented, and attendees provide comments during open discussion periods. After weighing all evidence, an unbiased, independent panel prepares a draft report that identifies research gaps and future research priorities. The draft report is posted on the ODP Web site for public comment. After reviewing the public comments, the panel prepares a final report, which is also posted on the ODP Web site. The ODP then convenes a Federal Partners Meeting to review the panel report and identify possible opportunities for collaboration.

    Please Note:

    As part of measures to ensure the safety of NIH employees and property, all visitors must be prepared to show a photo ID upon request. Visitors may be required to pass through a metal detector and have bags, backpacks, or purses inspected or X-rayed as they enter the NIH campus. For more information about the security measures at the NIH, please visit http://www.nih.gov/about/visitorsecurity.htm.

    Dated: November 15, 2017. Lawrence A. Tabak, Deputy Director, National Institutes of Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25335 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: AIDS and Related Research.

    Date: December 13, 2017.

    Time:10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Robert Freund, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1050, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: AIDS and Related Research.

    Date: December 15, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Robert Freund, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1050, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: November 17, 2017. Anna Snouffer, Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25339 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-1023] Certificate of Alternative Compliance for the TUG BERT REINAUER AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a Certificate of Alternative Compliance (COAC) to the TUG BERT REINAUER because it is a vessel of special construction or purpose, that, with respect to the position of its navigation and towing lights, is not able to fully comply with the provisions of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. Our publication of this notice fulfills a statutory requirement and promotes maritime security.

    DATES:

    The Certificate of Alternative Compliance was issued on November 16, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information or questions about this notice call or email Mr. Kevin Miller, First District Towing Vessel/Barge Safety Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (617) 223-8272, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Under statutory law 1 and Coast Guard regulation,2 a vessel may instead meet alternative requirements and the vessel's owner, builder, operator, or agent may apply for a Certificate of Alternate Compliance (COAC).

    1 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    2 33 CFR 81.3.

    For vessels of special construction, the cognizant Coast Guard District Office determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with the 72 COLREGS, and decides whether to issue the COAC. The Coast Guard issued a COAC to the TUG BERT REINAUER on November 16, 2017. That COAC will remain valid until information supplied in the COAC application or the COAC terms become inapplicable to the vessel.

    Under the governing statute 3 and regulation,4 the Coast Guard must publish notice of having issued this COAC. This notice promotes maritime safety by informing vessels that may encounter the TUG BERT REINAUER to expect alternative positioning of its navigation and towing lights.

    3 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    4 33 CFR 81.18.

    The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, certifies that the TUG BERT REINAUER is a vessel of special construction or purpose, and that, with respect to the position of the navigation and towing lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS, without interfering with the normal operation of the vessel. The Commandant further finds and certifies that the sidelights (9′ 7″ from the vessel's side mounted on the pilot house) are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72 COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessel's operation.

    This notice is issued under authority of 33 U.S.C. 1605(c) and 33 CFR 81.18.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Byron L. Black, Prevention Chief, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25418 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-1003] National Maritime Security Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee teleconference meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee will meet via teleconference, to review and discuss the results of the “Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 05-17; Guidelines for Addressing Cyber Risks at Maritime Transportation Security Act Regulated Facilities” task. This teleconference will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Committee will meet on Thursday, December 14, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. This teleconference may close early if all business is finished.

    ADDRESSES:

    The teleconference will be broadcast via a web enabled interactive online format and teleconference line. To participate via teleconference, dial 1-202-475-4000; the passcode to join is 764 990 20#. Additionally, if you would like to participate in this teleconference via the online web format, please log onto https://share.dhs.gov/nmsac/ and follow the online instructions to register for this meeting. If you encounter technical difficulties, contact Mr. Ryan Owens at (202) 302-6565.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible.

    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the meetings, but if you want Committee members to review your comment before the meetings, please submit your comments no later than December 7, 2017. We are particularly interested in comments on the issues in the “Agenda” section below. You must include “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number USCG-2017-1003. Written comments must be submitted using the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. If you encounter technical difficulties, contact the individual in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. You may review a Privacy Act and Security Notice for the Federal Docket Management System at http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.

    Docket Search: For access to the docket to read documents or comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and use “USCG-2017-1003” in the “Search” box, press Enter, and then click on the item you wish to view.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Ryan Owens, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Maritime Security Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593, Stop 7581, Washington, DC 20593-7581; telephone 202-372-1108 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix). The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee operates under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70112. The National Maritime Security Advisory Committee provides advice, consults with, and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the Coast Guard, on matters relating to national maritime security.

    Agenda of Meeting (1) Results of the Cyber Security Working Group

    The Committee will meet to review and discuss the results of the Cyber Security Working Group to address the questions posed to the Committee at the September public meeting in regards to the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 05-17; Guidelines for Addressing Cyber Risks at Maritime Transportation Security Act Regulated Facilities.

    (2) Public Comment Period

    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/NMSAC by December 7, 2017.

    There will be a public comment period at the end of the meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 5 minutes and keep their remarks to the topic of the Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular 05-17; Guidelines for Addressing Cyber Risks at Maritime Transportation Security Act Regulated Facilities. Please note that the public comment period may end before the period allotted, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above to register as a speaker.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Jennifer F. Williams, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25404 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2010-1066] Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act; Fiscal Year 2017 ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to satisfy a requirement of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act that a detailed accounting of the projects, programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating safety program provision of the Act be published annually in the Federal Register. This notice specifies the funding amounts the Coast Guard has committed, obligated, or expended during fiscal year 2017, as of September 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions on this notice please contact Mr. Jeff Ludwig, U.S. Coast Guard, Regulations Development Manager, (202) 372-1061.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose

    Since 1998, Congress has passed a series of laws providing funding for projects, programs, and activities funded under the national recreational boating safety program, which is administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. For a detailed description of the legislative history, please see the Recreational Boating Safety Projects, Programs, and Activities Funded Under Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act; Fiscal Year 2016 Notice published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17671).

    These funds are available to the Secretary from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund (Trust Fund) established under 26 U.S.C. 9504(a) for payment of Coast Guard expenses for personnel and activities directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program. Amounts made available under this subsection remain available during the two succeeding fiscal years. Any amount that is unexpended or unobligated at the end of the 3-year period during which it is available, shall be withdrawn by the Secretary and allocated to the States in addition to any other amounts available for allocation in the fiscal year in which they are withdrawn or the following fiscal year.

    Use of these funds requires compliance with standard Federal contracting rules with associated lead and processing times resulting in a lag time between available funds and spending. The total amount of funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Trust Fund, and committed, obligated, and/or expended during fiscal year 2017 for each project is shown below.

    Specific Accounting of Funds

    The total amount of funding transferred to the Coast Guard from the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund and committed, obligated, and/or expended during fiscal year 2017 for each project is shown in the chart below.

    Project Description Cost 46 USC 43 Compliance: Inspection Program/Boat Testing Program Provided for continuance of the national recreational boat compliance inspection program, which began in January 2001 $1,837,556 46 USC 43 Compliance: Staff Salaries and Travel Provided for personnel to oversee manufacturer compliance with 46 U.S.C. 43 requirements and staff travel to verify manufacturer compliance with 46 U.S.C. 43 requirements 528,210 Administrative Overhead Office supplies 12,117 Boating Accident Report Database (BARD) Web System Provided for maintaining the BARD Web System, which enables reporting authorities in the 50 States, five U.S. Territories, and the District of Columbia to submit their accident reports electronically over a secure Internet connection 290,343 Contract Personnel Support Provided contract personnel to conduct boating safety-related research and analysis 634,390 Boating Accident News Clipping Services Provided for the collection of news stories of recreational boating accidents for more real time accident information and to identify accidents that may involve regulatory non-compliances or safety defects 25,000 National Boating Safety Advisory Council Provided for member travel and meeting costs for the 96th & 97th National Boating Safety Advisory Council meetings 56,230 Grant Management Training Provided to facilitate staff training on new grant management requirements 130,883 Recreational Boating Safety Program Travel Provided for travel by employees of the Boating Safety Division to gather background and planning information for new recreational boating safety initiatives 113,780 Reimbursable Salaries Provided for 18 personnel directly related to coordinating and carrying out the national recreational boating safety program 2,438,844 Printing Provided for printing of boating safety-related brochures 350,000 National Recreational Boating Safety Survey Provided for development and implementation of the 2018 National Recreational Boating Safety Survey 4,025,096

    Of the $7.8 million made available to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2017, $6,439,358 has been committed, obligated, or expended and an additional $4,003,091 of prior fiscal year funds have been committed, obligated, or expended, as of September 30, 2017. The remainder of the FY16 and FY17 funds made available to the Coast Guard (approximately $3,367,929) may be retained for the allowable period for the National Recreational Boating Survey, other projects, or transferred into the pool of money available for allocation through the state grant program.

    Authority:

    This notice is issued pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552 and 46 U.S.C. 13107(c)(4).

    Dated: November 17, 2017. J.F. Williams, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections & Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25393 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0055] Agency Information Collection Activities: Harbor Maintenance Fee AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments; extension of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than January 23, 2018 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0055 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (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, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Harbor Maintenance Fee.

    OMB Number: 1651-0055.

    Form Number: CBP Forms 349 and 350.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to Forms 349 and 350.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Abstract: The Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) and Trust Fund is used for the operation and maintenance of certain U.S. channels and harbors by the Army Corps of Engineers. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is required to collect the HMF from importers, domestic shippers, and passenger vessel operators using federal navigation projects. Commercial cargo loaded on or unloaded from a commercial vessel is subject to a port use fee of 0.125 percent of its value if the loading or unloading occurs at a port that has been designated by the Army Corps of Engineers. The HMF also applies to the total ticket value of embarking and disembarking passengers and on cargo admissions into a Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ).

    CBP Form 349, Harbor Maintenance Fee Quarterly Summary Report, and CBP Form 350, Harbor Maintenance Fee Amended Quarterly Summary Report are completed by domestic shippers, foreign trade zone applicants, and passenger vessel operators and submitted with payment to CBP.

    CBP uses the information collected on CBP Forms 349 and 350 to verify that the fee collected is timely and accurately submitted. These forms are authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 4461, et seq.) and provided for by 19 CFR 24.24, which also includes the list of designated ports. CBP Forms 349 and 350 are accessible at http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms or they may be completed and filed electronically at www.pay.gov.

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    CBP Form 349

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 560.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 2,240.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,120.

    CBP Form 350

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 15.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 60.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 30.

    Recordkeeping

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 575.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 575.

    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 96.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25380 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Customs Brokers User Fee Payment for 2018 AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides notice to customs brokers that the annual user fee that is assessed for each permit held by a broker, whether it may be an individual, partnership, association, or corporation, is due by January 26, 2018. Pursuant to fee adjustments required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) and CBP regulations, the annual user fee for calendar year 2018 will be $141.70.

    DATES:

    Payment of the 2018 Customs Broker User Fee is due by January 26, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Peterson, Broker Management Branch, Office of Trade, (202) 863-6601.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 111.96 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.96(c)), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) assesses an annual user fee for each customs broker district and national permit held by an individual, partnership, association, or corporation. CBP regulations provide that this fee is payable for each calendar year in each broker district where the broker was issued a permit to do business by the due date. See 19 CFR 24.22(h) and (i)(9). Broker districts are defined in the General Notice entitled, “Geographic Boundaries of Customs Brokerage, Cartage and Lighterage Districts,” published in the Federal Register on March 15, 2000 (65 FR 14011), and corrected, with minor changes, on March 23, 2000 (65 FR 15686) and on April 6, 2000 (65 FR 18151).

    On December 4, 2015, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, Pub. L. 114-94) was signed into law. Section 32201 of the FAST Act amended section 13031 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c) by requiring certain customs COBRA user fees and corresponding limitations to be adjusted by the Secretary of the Treasury (Secretary) to reflect certain increases in inflation.

    On November 1, 2017, CBP published a final rule, CBP Dec. 17-16 (82 FR 50523), which amended sections 24.22 and 24.23 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR 24.22 and 24.23) to implement the requirements of the FAST Act. Specifically, CBP created a new paragraph (k) in section 24.22 (19 CFR 24.22(k)) that sets forth the methodology to determine the change in inflation as well as the factor by which the fees and limitations will be adjusted, if necessary. The customs broker user fee is set forth in Appendix A of part 24. (19 CFR 24.22 Appendix A). On November 1, 2017, CBP also published a Federal Register notice, CBP Dec. 17-17, which among other things, announced that the annual broker permit user fee will increase to $141.70 for calendar year 2018. See 82 FR 50659.

    As required by 19 CFR 111.96, CBP must provide notice in the Federal Register no later than 60 days before the date that the payment is due for each broker permit. This document notifies customs brokers that for calendar year 2018, the due date for payment of the user fee is January 26, 2018.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Brenda B. Smith, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Trade.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25435 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2017-0064] Meeting: Homeland Security Advisory Council AGENCY:

    The Office of Partnership and Engagement, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of partially closed Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Homeland Security Advisory Council (“Council”) will meet in person on Friday, December 8, 2017. Members of the public may participate in person. The meeting will be partially closed to the public.

    DATES:

    The Council will meet Friday, December 8, 2017, from 10:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. The meeting will be open to the public from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST. Please note the meeting may close early if the Council has completed its business. The meeting will be closed to the public from 10:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., and 3:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“Wilson Center”), located at 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. All visitors will be processed through the lobby of the Wilson Center. Written public comments prior to the meeting must be received by 5:00 p.m. EST on Monday, December 4, 2017, and must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2017-0064. Written public comments after the meeting must be identified by Docket No. DHS-2017-0064 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. DHS-2017-0064 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: (202) 282-9207.

    Mail: Homeland Security Advisory Council, Attention Mike Miron, Department of Homeland Security, Mailstop 0445, 245 Murray Lane SW., Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and “DHS-2016-0056,” the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received by the Council, go to http://www.regulations.gov, search “DHS-2016-0022,” “Open Docket Folder” and provide your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mike Miron at [email protected] or at (202) 447-3135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), which requires each FACA committee meeting to be open to the public.

    The Council provides organizationally independent, strategic, timely, specific, actionable advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on matters related to homeland security. The Council is comprised of leaders of local law enforcement, first responders, Federal, State, and local government, the private sector, and academia.

    The Council will meet in an open session between 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST. The Council will swear in new members, and receive new taskings.

    The Council will meet in a closed session from 10:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST, 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and from 3:45 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST, to receive sensitive operational information from senior officials on current counterterrorism threats, border security, the Transportation and Security Administration, and cybersecurity.

    Basis for Partial Closure: In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has determined this meeting requires partial closure. The disclosure of the information relayed would be detrimental to the public interest for the following reasons:

    The Council will receive closed session briefings from senior officials. These briefings will concern matters sensitive to homeland security within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) and 552b(c)(9)(B). The Council will receive operational counterterrorism updates on the current threat environment and security measures associated with countering such threats, including those related to aviation security programs, border security, immigration enforcement, and cybersecurity.

    The session is closed under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E) because disclosure of that information could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally available to the public, allowing terrorists and those with interests against the United States to circumvent the law and thwart the Department's strategic initiatives. In addition, the session is closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) because disclosure of these techniques and procedures could frustrate the successful implementation of protective measures designed to keep our country safe.

    Participation: Members of the public will have until 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday, December 1, 2017, to register to attend the Council meeting on December 8, 2017. Due to limited availability of seating, admittance will be on a first-come first-serve basis. Participants interested in attending the meeting can contact Mike Miron at [email protected] or (202) 447-3135. You are required to provide your full legal name, date of birth, and company/agency affiliation. The public may access the facility via public transportation or use the public parking garages located near the Wilson Center. Directions to the Wilson Center can be found at: http://wilsoncenter.org/directions. Members of the public will meet at 2:00 p.m. EST at the Wilson Center's main entrance for sign in and escorting to the meeting room for the public session. Late arrivals after 2:30 p.m. EST will not be permitted access to the facility.

    Facility Access: You are required to present a valid original government issued ID, to include a State Driver's License or Non-Driver's Identification Card, U.S. Government Common Access Card (CAC), Military Identification Card or Person Identification Verification Card; U.S. Passport, U.S. Border Crossing Card, Permanent Resident Card or Alien Registration Card; or Native American Tribal Document.

    Information of Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact Mike Miron at [email protected] or (202) 447-3135 as soon as possible.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Michael McKeown, Executive Director, Homeland Security Advisory Council, DHS.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25423 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9M-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0101] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Document Verification Request and Supplement AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0101 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2008-0008. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2008-0008;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2008-0008 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Document Verification Request and Supplement.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form G-845; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Federal Government; State, local or Tribal Government.

    In the verification process, a participating agency validates an applicant's immigration status by inputting identifying information into the Verification Information System (VIS), which executes immigration status queries against a range of data sources. If VIS returns an immigration status and the benefit-issuing agency does not find a material discrepancy with the response and the documents provided by the applicant, the verification process is complete. Then, the agency may use that immigration status information to determine whether to issue the benefit.

    If VIS does not locate a record pertaining to the applicant during an electronic initial verification, a second step additional verification must be requested by the agency, so that a Status Verifier can manually check the records. If the Status Verifier cannot determine status during the second step additional verification, they will request the agency to submit a copy of the applicant's immigration document. The immigration document can be submitted using scan and upload or by attaching it to a Form G-845 and mailing it to the Status Verifier.

    Applicants may check on the processing of additional verification through the SAVE Case Check web portal, found at http://www.uscis.gov/save/save-case-check. SAVE Case Check permits applicants to use the SAVE verification numbers associated with their benefit applications or the immigration identification numbers and dates of birth provided to those benefit granting agencies to access this information.

    In limited cases, agencies may query USCIS by filing Form G-845 by mail. Although the Form G-845 does not require it, if needed, certain agencies may also file the Form G-845 Supplement with the Form G-845, along with copies of immigration documents to receive additional information necessary to make their benefit determinations. These forms were developed to facilitate communication between all benefit-granting agencies and USCIS to ensure that basic information required to assess status verification requests is provided.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection G-845 Verification Request is 162,106 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.083 hours; for the information collection VIS Query the estimated total number of respondents is 23,293,981 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.083 hours; for the information collection G-845, Verification Request Supplement, the estimated total number of respondents is 7,122 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.083 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,947,446 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $12,113,642.50.

    Dated: November 16, 2017 Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25351 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0015] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension/revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0015 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0018. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0018;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0018 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-140; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for Profit. USCIS uses the information provided on Form I-140 to classify aliens under section 203(b)(1), 203(b)(2) or 203(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-140 is 225,637 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.08 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 243,688 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $93,977,810.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25348 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0003] Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension/revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 23, 2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0003 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0038. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0038;

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2007-0038 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

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

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

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

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

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a currently approved collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-539; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. This form will be used for nonimmigrants to apply for an extension of stay, for a change to another nonimmigrant classification, or for obtaining V nonimmigrant classification.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for average respondent to respond: Form I-539—212,609 total respondents requiring an estimated 1.88 hours per response. Supplement A—72,500 total respondents requiring an estimated .50 hours per response. Biometrics processing—212,609 total respondents requiring an estimated 1.17 hours per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 684,708 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $48,896,120.

    Dated: November 16, 2017. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, <E T="03">Department of Homeland Security</E>.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25350 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6064-N-01] Notice of Extension of Time for Completion of Required Manufacturer Corrections AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of an extension of time.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice advises the public of a request for extension of completion of a plan for notification and correction of certain manufactured homes built by Clayton Home Building Group (Clayton) that were installed with a certain Tub-Shower Faucet diverter valve manufactured by StoneCrest. The affected diverter model is N8126C. In accordance with Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations 3282.410(c), the Department has reviewed Clayton's request and has determined that Clayton has shown good cause for an extension.

    DATES:

    October 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 9166, Washington, DC 20410, telephone 202-708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401-5426) (the Act) authorizes HUD to establish the Federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (Construction and Safety Standards), codified in 24 CFR part 3280. Section 615 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5414) requires that manufacturers of manufactured homes notify purchasers if the manufacturer determines, in good faith, that a defect exists or is likely to exist in more than one home manufactured by the manufacturer and the defect relates to the Construction and Safety Standards or constitutes an imminent safety hazard to the purchaser of the manufactured home. The notification shall also inform purchasers whether the defect is one that the manufacturer will have corrected at no cost or is one that must be corrected at the expense of the purchaser/owner. The manufacturer is responsible to notify purchasers of the defect within a reasonable time after discovering the defect.

    HUD's procedural and enforcement provisions at 24 CFR part 3282, subpart I (Subpart I) implement these notification and correction requirements. If a manufacturer determines that it is responsible for providing notification under § 3282.405 and correction under § 3282.406, the manufacturer must prepare a plan for notifying purchasers of the homes containing the defect pursuant to §§ 3282.408 and 3282.409. Notification of purchasers must be accomplished by certified mail or other more expeditious means that provides a receipt. Notification must be provided to each retailer or distributor to whom any manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect was delivered, to the first purchaser of each manufactured home in the class of manufactured homes containing the defect, and to other persons who are registered owners of a manufactured home in the class of homes containing the defect. The manufacturer must complete the implementation of the plan for notification and correction on or before the deadline approved by the State Administrative Agency or HUD.

    Under § 3282.410(c), the manufacturer may request an extension of a previously established deadline if it shows good cause for the extension and the Secretary of HUD decides that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest. If the request for extension is approved, § 3282.410(c) requires that HUD publish notice of the extension in the Federal Register.

    On May 25, 2017 and revised on June 30, 2017, Clayton notified the Department that it received information that a defect was systematically introduced into homes during the manufacturing process. Specifically, the homes were installed with certain StoneCrest tub-shower diverters, which were subsequently improperly plumbed by using inadequately sized tubing. The installation, under certain operating conditions, created potential for water to leak from the shower head when the diverter was in use. On October 9, 2017, Clayton requested an extension to complete the corrections, since the population of affected homes remains extremely large and the time to make corrections is substantial. This notice advises that HUD finds that Clayton has shown good cause and that the extension is justified and not contrary to the public interest, and granted the requested extension until December 20, 2017. This extension permits Clayton to continue its good faith efforts to correct affected homes at no cost to affected homeowners.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Teresa B. Payne, Deputy Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25337 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2017-N099; FXES11130400000EA-123-FF04EF1000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Availability of Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Florida Scrub-Jay, Volusia, County, FL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comment/information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application for incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ACT). Orange Dale Venture, LLC, (Applicant) is requesting a 10-year ITP. We request public comment on the permit application and accompanying proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) as well as on our preliminary determination that the plan qualifies as low-effect under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To make this determination, we used our environmental action statement and low-effect screening form, which are also available for review.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by December 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    If you wish to review the application and HCP, you may request the documents by email, U.S. mail, or phone (see below). These documents are also available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the office below. Send your comments or requests by any one of the following methods.

    Email: [email protected] Use “Attn: Permit number TE39111C-0.”

    Fax: Field Supervisor, (904) 731-3191, “Attn: Permit number TE39111C-0.”

    U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Ecological Services Field Office, Attn: Permit number TE39111C-0, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256.

    In-person drop-off: You may drop off information during regular business hours at the above office address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin M. Gawera, telephone: (904) 731-3121; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 9 of the Act and our implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR part 17 prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). However, under limited circumstances, we issue permits to authorize incidental take, i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.

    Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. The ESA's take prohibitions do not apply to federally listed plants on private lands unless such take would violate State law. In addition to meeting other criteria, an incidental take permit's proposed actions must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plants.

    Applicant's Proposal

    Orange Dale Venture, LLC, is requesting a 10-year ITP to take approximately 5 acres (ac) of occupied scrub-jay foraging and sheltering habitat incidental to construction of an energy substation. The 161.6-ac project site is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the intersection of Veterans Memorial Parkway and Saxon Boulevard within Section 14, Township 18 South, Range 30 East, Volusia County, Florida. The project includes construction of a residential and commercial development, and the associated clearing, infrastructure, and landscaping. The Applicant proposes to mitigate for the take of the scrub-jay, based on Service Mitigation Guidelines, by contributing funds in the amount of $209,220.00 to the Nature Conservancy's Conservation Fund for the management and conservation of the Florida scrub-jay.

    Our Preliminary Determination

    We have determined that the Applicant's proposal, including the proposed mitigation and minimization measures, would have minor or negligible effects on the species covered in the HCP. Therefore, we have determined that the incidental take permit for this project is “low effect” and qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as provided by 43 CFR 46.205 and 43 CFR 46.210. A low-effect HCP is one involving (1) minor or negligible effects on federally listed or candidate species and their habitats, and (2) minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the HCP and comments we receive to determine whether the ITP application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. We will also evaluate whether issuance of the ITP complies with section 7 of the ESA by conducting an intra-Service consultation. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If the requirements are met, we will issue the issue ITP number TE39111C-0 to the Applicant.

    Public Comments

    If you wish to comment on the permit application, HCP, and associated documents, you may submit comments by any one of the methods in ADDRESSES.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA and NEPA regulation 40 CFR 1506.6.

    Dated: October 3, 2017. Jay B. Herrington, Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, Southeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25249 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Geological Survey [GX18EE000101100] National Geospatial Advisory Committee; Public Meeting AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a public meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, December 11, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via web conference and teleconference.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. John Mahoney, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 909 First Avenue, Suite 800, Seattle, WA 98104; by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at (206) 220-4621.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2. The NGAC provides advice and recommendations related to management of Federal and national geospatial programs, the development of the NSDI, and the implementation of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-16. The NGAC reviews and comments on geospatial policy and management issues and provides a forum to convey views representative of non-federal stakeholders in the geospatial community. The NGAC is one of the primary ways that the FGDC collaborates with its broad network of partners. Additional information about the meeting is available at: www.fgdc.gov/ngac.

    Agenda Topics:

    —FGDC Update —Landsat Advisory Group —Geospatial Technology and Infrastructure —Geospatial Platform/Data as Services —Cultural and Historical Geospatial Resources —NSDI Strategic Plan Framework

    Meeting Accessibility/Special Accommodations: The webinar meeting is open to the public. Members of the public wishing to attend the meeting and receive webinar and call-in information should contact Ms. Lucia Foulkes by email at [email protected] to register by December 8, 2017. Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Lucia Foulkes at the email stated above or by telephone at 703-648-4142 at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: Time will be allowed at the meeting for any individual or organization wishing to make oral comments. To allow for full consideration of information by the committee members at the meeting, written comments must be provided to Ms. Lucia Foulkes, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS-590, Reston, VA 20192; by email at [email protected]; or by telephone at 703-648-4142, by December 8, 2017. All comments received will be provided to the committee members.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Kenneth Shaffer, Deputy Executive Director, Federal Geographic Data Committee.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25375 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR [18XD4523WS/DWSN00000.000000/DS61500000/DP61501] Invasive Species Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). The purpose of the ISAC is to provide advice to the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause.

    DATES:

    The meeting will take place from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 6, 2017 (Eastern Standard Time).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. The toll-free conference phone number and access code can be obtained by calling (202) 208-4122, or visiting the NISC Secretariat's Web site at www.invasivespecies.gov. Please note that the maximum capacity for the teleconference is 100 participants. For record keeping purposes, participants will be required to provide their name and contact information to the operator before being connected.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kelsey Brantley, Operations and ISAC Coordinator, National Invasive Species Council Secretariat, 1849 C Street, MS 3530, NW., Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 208-4122; fax (202) 208-4118; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The ISAC is established by the Secretary of the Interior, as authorized by Executive Order 13751, and is regulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2). The purpose of the ISAC is to provide advice to the NISC on a broad array of issues related to preventing the introduction of invasive species and providing for their control and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The NISC is co-chaired by the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of Commerce. The NISC provides national leadership regarding invasive species issues.

    The purpose of a meeting is to convene the full ISAC to discuss and consider adoption of briefing papers generated by ISAC task teams on: (1) Federal-State Coordination, (2) Federal-Tribal Coordination; (3) Wildlife Health; (4) Advanced Biotechnology; (5) Infrastructure; and, (6) Managed Relocation.

    The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are welcome to participate by accessing the teleconference line. Up to 15 minutes will be set aside for public comment. Persons wishing to make a comment are asked to provide a written request with a description of the general subject to Ms. Brantley at the above address no later than November 27, 2017. Any member of the public may submit written information and/or comments to Ms. Brantley for distribution at the ISAC meeting.

    Public Disclosure of Comments: Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: November 17, 2017. Jamie K. Reaser, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25383 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4334-63P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2015-0068] Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska Region, Beaufort Sea Planning Area, Liberty Development and Production Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Re-Opening of Public Comment Period; MMAA10400 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Re-opening of public comment period, Liberty Development and Production Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is re-opening the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) relating to the Liberty Development and Production Plan (DPP) in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area. This Draft EIS was issued on August 17, 2017. The original comment period was scheduled to last from August 17 to November 18, 2017, and included public hearings in Fairbanks, Nuiqsut, Utqiaġvik, and Anchorage in early October. This Federal Register Notice (Notice) re-opens the comment period, to extend from the date of this Notice to December 8, 2017. Comments received between November 18 and the date of this Notice will still be accepted and considered by BOEM. After BOEM reviews comments on the Draft EIS, BOEM will prepare a Final EIS.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on December 8, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the Liberty DPP EIS or BOEM's policies associated with this notice, please contact Lauren Boldrick, Project Manager, BOEM, Alaska OCS Region, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 334-5227.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Federal, state, tribal, and local governments and/or agencies and other interested parties may submit written comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the field titled “Enter Keyword or ID,” enter [Docket No. BOEM-2015-0068], and then click “search.” Follow the instructions to submit public comments and view supporting and related materials available for this notice.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comments to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: November 20, 2017. Walter D. Cruickshank, Deputy Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25433 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-472 (Fourth Review)] Silicon Metal From China; Scheduling of a Full Five-Year Review AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on Silicon Metal from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days.

    DATES:

    November 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lawrence Jones ((202) 205-3358), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (https://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this review may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—On June 5, 2017, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review should proceed (82 FR 27525, June 15, 2017); accordingly, a full review is being scheduled pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's Web site.

    Participation in the review and public service list.—Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.

    For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Staff report.—The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 27, 2018, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.

    Hearing.—The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 20, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before March 12, 2018. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should participate in a prehearing conference to be held on March 14, 2018, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, if deemed necessary. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the hearing.

    Written submissions.—Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is March 8, 2018. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 29, 2018. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before March 29, 2018. On April 20, 2018, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before April 24, 2018, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at https://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    The Commission has determined that this review is extraordinarily complicated and therefore has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B).

    Authority:

    This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25432 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-055] Sunshine Act Meetings Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    December 1, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-565 and 731-TA-1341 (Final)(Hardwood Plywood from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission on December 20, 2017.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 21, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25542 Filed 11-21-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled In the Matter of AMOLED Display Infringing US Patents, DN 3276; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Mr. Seung Ki Joo, Ph.D./Professor on November 17, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of in the matter of AMOLED display infringing U.S. patents. The complaint names as respondents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. of Korea. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a general exclusion order or in the alternative, a limited exclusion order, and cease and desist orders.

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant 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 requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

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

    (iii) Identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (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 requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) Explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3276) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures 1). Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. 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,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 17, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25369 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1084] Certain Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials Thereof: Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on September 28, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of YETI Coolers, LLC of Austin, Texas. An amended complaint was filed on October 27, 2017. A supplement to the amended complaint was filed on October 31, 2017. The amended complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain insulated beverage containers, components, labels, and packaging materials thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 5,233,441 (“the '441 trademark”); U.S. Trademark No. 4,883,074 (“the '074 trademark”); U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 1-974-722 (“the '722 copyright”); U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 1-974-732 (“the '732 copyright”); U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 1-974-735 (“the '735 copyright”); U.S. Design Patent No. D752,397 (“the '397 design patent”); U.S. Design Patent No. D780,533 (“the '533 design patent”); U.S. Design Patent No. D781,146 (“the '146 design patent”); and U.S. Design Patent No. D784,775 (“the '775 design patent'). The amended complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The amended complaint also alleges violations of section 337 based on the importation into the United States, or in the sale of certain insulated beverage containers, components, labels, and packaging materials thereof by reason of false advertising and passing off, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The amended complaint, as supplemented, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pathenia M. Proctor, The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the amended complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on November 15, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine:

    (a) Whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) in the importation or sale of certain insulated beverage containers, components, labels, and packaging materials thereof by reason of false advertising or passing off, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;

    (b) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain insulated beverage containers, components, labels, and packaging materials thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of the '722 copyright; the '732 copyright; the '735 copyright; the claim of the '397 design patent; the claim of the '533 design patent; the claim of the '146 design patent; and the claim of the '775 design patent; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (c) whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain insulated beverage containers, components, labels, and packaging materials thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of the '441 trademark and the '074 trademark; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: YETI Coolers, LLC, 7601 Southwest Parkway, Austin, Texas 78735

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Alibaba (China) Technology Co., Ltd., 26/F Tower One, Times Square, l Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Alibaba Group Holding Limited, c/o Alibaba Group Services Limited, 26/F Tower One, Times Square, 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited, 26/F Tower One, Times Square, 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited, 26/F Tower One, Times Square, 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Bonanza.com, Inc., 3131 Western Ave, Suite 428, Seattle, WA 98121 ContextLogic, Inc. d/b/a/Wish, 1 Sansome Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 Dunhuang Group, 6F Dimeng Commercial Building, No. 3-2 Hua Yuan Road, Haidian District Beijing 100191, China Hangzhou Alibaba Advertising Co., Ltd., 26/F Tower One, Times Square, 1 Matheson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong Huizhou Dashu Trading Co., Ltd., 2001 Unit 2, #203 Building, Jinshanhu Garden, Huanhu Third Road, Huicheng District, Huizhou City, Guangdong Province, China Huagong Trading Co., Ltd., WANGSHIZHUANG, QINGHE County, Hebei, QINGH,, Hebei, China Tan Er Pa Technology Co., Ltd., Floor 9 10, No. 29 Qianlu, Manfeng Village Shajing, Kwai Chung N.T., Hong Kong Shenzhen Great Electronic Technology Co.,, Ltd., Room 3108A, Modern International,, Jintian Rd, Futian District, Shenzhen,, China 518000 SZ Flowerfairy Technology Ltd., 115 Room, No. 12, Building Pinshangyuan, Xixiang Street, Baoan District, Shenzhen, China

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the amended complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the amended complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the amended complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the amended complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the amended complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 17, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25360 Filed 11-22-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [USITC SE-17-054] Sunshine Act Meetings Agency Holding the Meeting:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    TIME AND DATE:

    November 29, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Agendas for future meetings: None.

    2. Minutes.

    3. Ratification List.

    4. Vote in Inv. Nos. 701-TA-476 and 731-tA-1179 (Review) (Multilayered Wood Flooring from China). The Commission is currently scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the Commission by December 13, 2017.

    5. Outstanding action jackets: None.

    In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: November 20, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-25491 Filed 11-21-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. CenturyLink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc.; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in United States of America v. CenturyLink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-cv-2028 (KBJ). On October 2, 2017, the United States filed a Complaint alleging that CenturyLink, Inc.'s proposed acquisition of Level 3 Communications, Inc. would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18. The proposed Final Judgment, filed at the same time as the Complaint, requires the defendants to: (1) Divest to an acquirer (or acquirers) all of the assets used by Level 3 exclusively or primarily to support provision of telecommunications services to enterprise and wholesale customer locations in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Boise, Idaho, and Tucson, Arizona Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and (2) provide to an acquirer an indefeasible right to use twenty-four strands of intercity dark fiber connecting thirty specific city pairs.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's Web site, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Scott A. Scheele, Chief, Telecommunications and Broadband Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 7000, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-616-5924).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 7000, Washington, DC 20530, Plaintiff v. Centurylink, Inc., 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71203 and Level 3 Communications, Inc., 1025 Eldorado Boulevard, Broomfield, Colorado 80021 Defendants.

    Civil Action No: 1:17-cv-2028 Judge: Ketanji Brown Jackson
    COMPLAINT

    The United States of America brings this civil action to enjoin the acquisition of Level 3 Communications, Inc. by CenturyLink, Inc. and to obtain other equitable relief.

    I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. On October 31, 2016, CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”) and Level 3 Communications, Inc. (“Level 3”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby CenturyLink would acquire Level 3. CenturyLink's proposed acquisition of Level 3 would consolidate two of the largest wireline telecommunications services providers in the United States.

    2. CenturyLink and Level 3 compete to provide fiber-optic-based connectivity and telecommunications services to enterprise and wholesale customers. Enterprise customers (including all sizes of businesses and institutions, such as community colleges, hospitals, and government agencies) purchase high quality fiber-optic-based connectivity and telecommunications services from CenturyLink and Level 3 for their own telecommunications services needs. Wholesale customers (i.e., telecommunications carriers seeking to provide telecommunications services to customer locations in areas where they do not have their own wireline infrastructure) purchase local network and building-level fiber connectivity from CenturyLink and Level 3 in order to provide telecommunications services to their end-user customers.

    3. In three Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”) 1 —Albuquerque, New Mexico; Boise, Idaho; 2 and Tucson, Arizona—CenturyLink and Level 3 have two of the three most extensive fiber-based metropolitan area networks. Without significant competitors to rival their networks' scale in each of these three MSAs, CenturyLink and Level 3 represent each other's closest competitor for many enterprise and wholesale customers in these MSAs, including, for example, enterprise customers with locations spread throughout an MSA. In many buildings within each of these three MSAs, CenturyLink and Level 3 are the only two providers, or two of only three providers, that own a direct fiber connection to the building. In a substantial proportion of buildings in these MSAs, though CenturyLink and Level 3 may not be connected to these buildings, they are the only two providers with metropolitan area network fiber located close enough to connect economically, making CenturyLink and Level 3 the best options for customers in those buildings. The consolidation of these two competitors thus would likely substantially lessen competition for the provision of fiber-optic-based connectivity and telecommunications services in these three MSAs in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    1 An MSA is a geographical region defined by the Office of Management and Budget for use by federal statistical agencies, such as the Census Bureau. It is based on the concept of a core area with a large concentrated population, plus adjacent communities having close economic and social ties to the core. For the purposes of this Complaint, it includes the dense central business districts in Albuquerque, Tucson, and Boise as well as the adjacent, connected communities.

    2 The full name of this MSA as defined by the Office of Management and Budget is Boise City-Nampa, Idaho.

    4. CenturyLink and Level 3 also own substantial amounts of dark fiber connecting pairs of cities (“Intercity Dark Fiber”). Dark fiber is fiber-optic cable that has been installed, typically in conduit in the ground, but has not been “lit” by attaching optical electronic equipment at each end. Fiber that has had such equipment attached is called “lit” fiber because the equipment sends data through the fiber in the form of light waves. Such lit fiber can rapidly transmit thousands of terabits of data. Owners of Intercity Dark Fiber may “light” the fiber themselves and then use the lit fiber to sell telecommunications services, including data transport, to customers. But only a small handful of Intercity Dark Fiber owners, including CenturyLink and Level 3, also sell the fiber “dark” and permit customers to add their own electronic equipment and control their own data transport. Between some city pairs, CenturyLink and Level 3 are the only two Intercity Dark Fiber providers. Between some other city pairs, CenturyLink and Level 3 are two of only three Intercity Dark Fiber providers.

    5. Dark fiber is a crucial input for large, sophisticated customers that need to move substantial amounts of data between specific cities. These customers have specialized data transport needs, including capacity, scalability, flexibility, and security, that can be fulfilled only by Intercity Dark Fiber. CenturyLink and Level 3 compete to sell Intercity Dark Fiber to these customers, and this competition has led to lower prices for and increased availability of Intercity Dark Fiber. The consolidation of these two competitors would likely substantially lessen competition for the sale of Intercity Dark Fiber for thirty city pairs in the United States in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    II. DEFENDANTS AND THE TRANSACTION

    6. CenturyLink is a Louisiana corporation headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana. It is the third largest wireline telecommunications provider in the United States and is the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (“ILEC”) 3 in portions of 37 states. CenturyLink owns one of the most extensive physical fiber networks in the United States, including metropolitan area network components and direct fiber connections to numerous commercial buildings throughout the United States, particularly where it serves as the ILEC, as well as considerable intercity fiber infrastructure. Over the past ten years, CenturyLink has grown by acquiring a number of other large telecommunications providers, including Embarq Corporation in 2009 and Qwest Communications, Inc. in 2011. As of December 31, 2016, CenturyLink owned and operated a 360,000 route-mile global network, including a 265,000 route-mile U.S. fiber network, and generated 2016 operating revenues of $17.47 billion.

    3 An incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) is the telephone company that was the sole provider of local exchange service (local phone service) in a given local area prior to passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which allowed for competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) to compete for this local service.

    7. Level 3 is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado. It is one of the largest wireline telecommunications companies in the United States and operates as one of the largest Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (“CLEC”), owning significant local network assets comprised of metropolitan area network components and direct fiber connections to numerous commercial buildings throughout the United States, including within portions of CenturyLink's ILEC territory. Level 3 operates one of the most extensive physical fiber networks in the United States, including sizeable intercity fiber infrastructure. Level 3 has made a number of significant acquisitions in the past ten years, including Global Crossing Limited in 2011 and tw telecom inc. in 2014. Level 3 owns and operates a 200,000 route-mile global fiber network and generated $8.172 billion of operating revenues in 2016.

    8. On October 31, 2016, CenturyLink and Level 3 entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger whereby CenturyLink will acquire Level 3 for approximately $34 billion.

    III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

    9. The United States brings this action under the direction of the Attorney General and pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, to prevent and restrain CenturyLink and Level 3 from violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    10. CenturyLink and Level 3 are engaged in, and their activities substantially affect, interstate commerce. CenturyLink and Level 3 sell wireline telecommunications goods and services throughout the United States. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and these defendants pursuant to Section 15 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 25, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), and 1345.

    11. Defendants CenturyLink and Level 3 transact business in the District of Columbia and have consented to venue and personal jurisdiction in this District. Venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1) and (c).

    IV. BACKGROUND

    12. Wireline telecommunications infrastructure is critical in transporting the data that individuals, businesses, and other entities transmit. Among the key components of this infrastructure are: the fiber strands connecting an individual building to a metropolitan area network; the fiber strands and related equipment comprising a metropolitan area network that serve an entire city or MSA; and the intercity fiber strands connecting cities to one another.

    13. Fiber strands connecting an individual building to the metropolitan area network serving an entire MSA are often referred to as “last-mile” connections. Without a last-mile fiber connection to the building, customers cannot send data to or receive data from any point outside of the building. And without the metropolitan area network to which those last-mile building fibers connect, customers cannot communicate with other buildings in the same MSA or reach any points beyond.

    14. These fiber building connections and fiber-based metropolitan area networks carry critical telecommunications services for enterprise customers. They also provide a link over which wholesale providers—who sell services to end users in buildings to which the wholesale provider does not own direct fiber connections—can serve their own customers.

    15. Each ILEC has its own territory, which can include entire MSAs and/or portions of MSAs. The ILEC typically has the largest number of fiber building connections in its territory. As such, CenturyLink typically has the largest number of fiber connections to the buildings where it is the ILEC, serving the majority of buildings that require high-bandwidth, high-reliability telecommunications services. CLECs like Level 3 have built fiber connections to buildings in CenturyLink's and other ILEC's territories, giving some buildings additional fiber connections. More recently, other entities like cable companies have begun investing in fiber connections to buildings in certain MSAs, though, like the CLECs, they typically have nowhere near the scale of the ILEC.

    16. In the MSAs of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Boise, Idaho; and Tucson, Arizona, CenturyLink is the ILEC and owns the largest and most extensive fiber-based metropolitan area network, and Level 3 owns one of the top three largest fiber-based networks in all three MSAs. In each of these MSAs, CenturyLink owns fiber connections to more than a thousand buildings, while Level 3 owns connections to hundreds of buildings. In many of these buildings, CenturyLink and Level 3 also control the only last-mile fiber connections. Moreover, they are two of only three significant providers with metropolitan area network fiber nearby.

    17. Intercity fiber connects a city's metropolitan area network to other cities' metropolitan area networks. Without fiber connecting cities' metropolitan area networks, each city would be an island, with no way for data sent by or destined for customers in one city to reach to or from any other city. This intercity fiber linking city pairs is distinct from metropolitan area network fiber that links locations within a city but does not connect outside—the only connection between a metropolitan area network and any point beyond is intercity fiber. CenturyLink and Level 3 are two of only a handful of companies with robust nationwide intercity fiber networks.

    18. Companies can light intercity fiber to send data across long distances between cities. Intercity Dark Fiber providers can light the fiber themselves, supplying and controlling the optical electronic equipment, and then sell lit services to customers. Intercity Dark Fiber providers can also sell the fiber dark to large, sophisticated customers, in which case the customer purchases the right to control the underlying fiber and then arranges for placement of optical electronic equipment to light the fiber and manages its own traffic on the fiber.

    19. Intercity Dark Fiber can provide customers additional data capacity, faster speeds, and more robust security and control over their data networks. Intercity Dark Fiber sales are typically structured as something similar to a long-term lease, known in the industry as an Indefeasible Right of Use (“IRU”), 4 with an up-front payment and some recurring fees for maintenance of the fiber. Only a few companies in the United States sell Intercity Dark Fiber. Most Intercity Dark Fiber providers also sell lit services, sometimes to the same customer.

    4 The FCC defines an IRU, in part, as an indefeasible long-term leasehold interest for a minimum total duration of ten years that gives the grantee the right to access and exclusively use specified strands of fiber or allocated bandwidth to provide a service as determined by the grantee. An IRU confers on the grantee substantially all of the risks and rewards of ownership.

    V. RELEVANT MARKETS A. Fiber-Based Enterprise and Wholesale Telecommunications Services Providing Local Connectivity to Customer Premises

    20. Fiber-based enterprise and wholesale telecommunications services providing local connectivity to customer premises constitutes a relevant market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    21. Customers require this product to deliver high-bandwidth, high-reliability telecommunications services. Customers who purchase fiber-based telecommunications services providing connectivity to their premises will not turn to other connectivity technologies (such as hybrid fiber-coax, copper, or fixed or mobile wireless) in sufficient numbers to make a small but significant increase in price of fiber-based telecommunications services unprofitable for a provider of these fiber-based telecommunications services.

    22. In some instances, the relevant telecommunications services to individual buildings are priced and sold separately. In other instances, including where MSA-wide price lists are used and where customers have multiple locations throughout an MSA, sales and pricing may be determined at the level of the MSA. Customers with multiple building locations spread throughout an MSA may demand integrated telecommunications services to all locations. Providers with a broad fiber presence in an MSA may be best suited to supply such customers. For such situations, the nature of competition may be best assessed at the MSA level. The geographic markets relevant to these services are no narrower than each individual building and no broader than each MSA.

    23. The relevant geographic markets and sections of the country under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, within which to assess the competitive impact of a combination of CenturyLink and Level 3 are the MSAs of Albuquerque, New Mexico; Boise, Idaho; and Tucson, Arizona (collectively, the “Three MSAs”).

    B. Intercity Dark Fiber

    24. Intercity Dark Fiber constitutes a relevant product market and line of commerce under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    25. Level 3 and CenturyLink utilize their intercity fiber to sell both lit services and Intercity Dark Fiber. Lit services generally are sold for a certain capacity and paid for on a monthly basis. The provider serves the customer using the provider's optical electronic equipment, and the provider manages the traffic on the fiber. In contrast, dark fiber is generally sold through IRUs so that the customer can arrange for its own equipment to be placed and manage its own traffic on the fiber. Customers who buy Intercity Dark Fiber, including webscale companies5 and financial institutions, require the properties of dark fiber for scalability, capacity, flexibility, and security. Lit services sold by telecommunications providers cannot match these qualities provided by Intercity Dark Fiber and are generally much more costly than Intercity Dark Fiber for these customers' purposes. Customers who purchase Intercity Dark Fiber will not turn to an alternate service like lit services in the event of a small but significant increase in the price of Intercity Dark Fiber.

    5 Webscale companies are those primarily engaged in the business of providing large amounts of data to end users through web-based services; they require facilities and infrastructure to create, store, and then transport that data across long distances.

    26. The geographic markets relevant to this product are specific city pairs in the United States. Intercity Dark Fiber customers generally need to transport data between specific sources and destinations (for example, data centers and headquarters), and accordingly require a fiber connection between cities close to those locations. Customers who face a small but significant increase in price for Intercity Dark Fiber between a specific city pair typically will not substitute different city pairs in response.

    27. Further, the directness of the route between cities is critical for purposes of reducing latency and expense. Therefore, Intercity Dark Fiber customers generally will consider only certain routes between a city pair to fulfill their needs. The more circuitous a route, the longer data needs to travel, and the more latency is introduced into the transmission. Longer routes are also more costly to operate as more amplifier and regeneration equipment must be added to the fiber to ensure proper transmission of the signal. Accordingly, only certain routes between a city pair are viable substitutes for Intercity Dark Fiber customers.

    28. The relevant geographic markets and sections of the country under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18, within which to assess the competitive impact of a combination of CenturyLink and Level 3 (collectively, the “Thirty City Pairs”) are:

    1. Atlanta-Nashville 2. Birmingham-Billingsley 3. Charlotte-Atlanta 4. Cleveland-Buffalo 5. Dallas-Memphis 6. Denver-Dallas 7. Denver-Kansas City 8. El Paso-San Antonio 9. Houston-New Orleans 10. Indianapolis-Cincinnati 11. Kansas City-St. Louis 12. Los Angeles-Las Vegas 13. Memphis-Nashville 14. Miami-Jacksonville 15. Nashville-Indianapolis 16. Orlando-Daytona Beach 17. Phoenix-El Paso 18. Portland-Salt Lake City 19. Raleigh-Charlotte 20. Richmond-Raleigh 21. Sacramento-Salt Lake City 22. Sacramento-San Francisco 23. Salt Lake City-Denver 24. San Diego-Phoenix 25. San Francisco-Los Angeles 26. Tallahassee-Jacksonville 27. Tallahassee-Tampa 28. Tampa-Miami 29. Tampa-Orlando 30. Washington, DC-Richmond VI. ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECTS

    29. The transaction likely would substantially lessen competition in the markets of enterprise and wholesale fiber-based local connectivity telecommunications services in the Three MSAs.

    30. Enterprise and wholesale customers in the Three MSAs who depend on fiber-based local connectivity telecommunications services provided by the defendants would be harmed as a result of CenturyLink's acquisition of Level 3. In particular, in addition to wholesale customers, in each of the Three MSAs there are a substantial number of enterprise customers with significant high-bandwidth, high-reliability telecommunications services needs. While some of these customers have a single location, many others have multiple locations throughout the metropolitan area and require telecommunications providers who can offer fiber-based connections to all of their locations. CenturyLink and Level 3 use their metropolitan area networks to compete for customers at locations in the Three MSAs where the two companies already have connected fiber, and to compete for opportunities at new locations throughout the MSAs where CenturyLink and Level 3 could economically add lines to connect to new locations.

    31. In each of the Three MSAs, CenturyLink is the largest provider of fiber connectivity and has fiber connections to over a thousand buildings. Level 3 has fiber connections to several hundred buildings in each of the Three MSAs, making it the second largest provider of fiber connectivity to buildings in Albuquerque and Tucson, and one of the top three largest in Boise. In many buildings in the Three MSAs, CenturyLink and Level 3 control the only last-mile fiber connections. Moreover, they are two of only three significant providers with fiber connections to, or metropolitan area network fiber nearby, buildings in the Three MSAs, representing a customer's best choices for this product in many instances in the Three MSAs. Competitor metropolitan area networks in these Three MSAs that have smaller, less robust networks are not close substitutes for CenturyLink's and Level 3's networks.

    32. CenturyLink and Level 3 compete directly against one another to provide fiber-based enterprise and wholesale local connectivity telecommunications services to a wide variety of customers in the Three MSAs, including, but not limited to, small- to medium-sized enterprise customers with one or multiple locations, large multi-regional enterprise customers with branch locations in the Three MSAs, and wholesale customers who resell to all types of end users. Customers have benefitted from this competition, including by receiving lower prices and higher quality services. The acquisition of Level 3 by CenturyLink would represent a loss of this competition.

    33. This loss of competition likely will result in increased prices for enterprise and wholesale customers purchasing fiber-based local connectivity telecommunications services in the Three MSAs. In each of the Three MSAs, CenturyLink and Level 3 operate in a highly concentrated market, representing for hundreds of buildings two of only three, and in some cases the only two, providers with fiber connectivity to or near customer premises. While currently these customers can turn to Level 3 if CenturyLink raises prices, the loss of Level 3 as a competitor would leave some customers with only one alternative and many others with no competitive choice at all. Post-merger, these highly concentrated markets will become significantly more concentrated, with the parties' combined share of all last-mile fiber building connections at approximately 90% in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 80% in Tucson, Arizona; and 70% in Boise, Idaho. Without Level 3 as a competitive constraint in these highly concentrated markets, the merged firm will have the incentive and ability to increase prices above competitive levels and reduce quality of service.

    34. The transaction likely would also substantially lessen competition for Intercity Dark Fiber for the Thirty City Pairs. Webscale and financial customers who currently rely on Level 3 and CenturyLink to compete for Intercity Dark Fiber sales would be harmed by this transaction. Not all telecommunications providers sell Intercity Dark Fiber. The ability to sell Intercity Dark Fiber requires that a provider control enough fiber for its own operations and have enough remaining to sell the amount requested by the customer, on the route specified by the customer, and for the length of time required by the customer. CenturyLink and Level 3 are two of only a few providers, and in most cases the only two providers, who have this ability and offer to sell Intercity Dark Fiber between each of the Thirty City Pairs. Webscale company customers typically require dark fiber across multiple intercity routes, and they prefer dark fiber providers who can provide them with contiguous routes, including those spanning from coast to coast. CenturyLink and Level 3 are two of only three Intercity Dark Fiber providers with at least one contiguous route from the west coast to the east coast.

    35. For the Thirty City Pairs, where competition is so highly concentrated, the acquisition of Level 3 by CenturyLink would represent a loss of crucial competition for customers who require Intercity Dark Fiber. The competition between CenturyLink and Level 3 for Intercity Dark Fiber between these city pairs has led to decreased prices and increased availability, with each defendant being more willing to lower price and offer more Intercity Dark Fiber, or offer Intercity Dark Fiber at all, in response to competitive pressure from the other. Currently, customers can turn to CenturyLink for Intercity Dark Fiber for any of the Thirty City Pairs if Level 3 raises price or is unwilling to sell Intercity Dark Fiber, but the loss of CenturyLink as a competitor would leave customers with no such option, providing the merged firm the incentive and ability to raise prices above competitive levels.

    VII. ABSENCE OF COUNTERVAILING FACTORS

    36. Entry of new competitors in the relevant markets is unlikely to prevent or remedy the proposed merger's anticompetitive effects.

    37. The proposed merger would be unlikely to generate verifiable, merger-specific efficiencies sufficient to reverse or outweigh the anticompetitive effects that are likely to occur.

    VIII. VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

    38. The acquisition of Level 3 by CenturyLink likely would substantially lessen competition in each of the relevant markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18.

    39. Unless enjoined, the acquisition will likely have the following anticompetitive effects, among others:

    a. competition in the market for fiber-based enterprise and wholesale telecommunications services providing local connectivity to customer premises in the Three MSAs—Albuquerque, New Mexico; Boise, Idaho; and Tucson, Arizona—would be substantially lessened;

    b. prices for fiber-based enterprise and wholesale telecommunications services providing local connectivity to customer premises in the Three MSAs would increase and quality of service would decline;

    c. competition in the markets for Intercity Dark Fiber between each of the Thirty City Pairs would be substantially lessened;

    d. prices for Intercity Dark Fiber between each of the Thirty City Pairs would increase; and

    e. availability of Intercity Dark Fiber between each of the Thirty City Pairs would decrease.

    IX. REQUESTED RELIEF

    40. The United States requests that this Court:

    a. adjudge and decree CenturyLink's acquisition of Level 3 to violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18;

    b. permanently enjoin and restrain CenturyLink and Level 3 from carrying out the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 31, 2016, or from entering into or carrying out any contract, agreement, plan, or understanding, by which CenturyLink would combine with or acquire Level 3, its capital stock, or any of its assets;

    c. award the United States its costs for this action; and

    d. award the United States such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

    Dated: October 2, 2017 Respectfully submitted, FOR PLAINTIFF UNITED STATES: MAKAN DELRAHIM Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division ANDREW C. FINCH Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division DONALD G. KEMPF, JR. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Antitrust Division PATRICIA A. BRINK Director of Civil Enforcement Antitrust Division SCOTT A. SCHEELE (D.C. Bar #429061) Chief Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section LAWRENCE M. FRANKEL (D.C. Bar #441532) Assistant Chief Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section SCOTT REITER* ALEXIS K BROWN-REILLY (D.C. Bar #1000424) MAUREEN CASEY (D.C. Bar #415893) ROBERT DRABA (D.C. Bar #496815) CORY BRADER LEUCHTEN KELLY SCHOOLMEESTER (D.C. Bar #1008354) MATTHEW SIEGEL CARL WILLNER (D.C. Bar #412841) CATHARINE WRIGHT (D.C. Bar #1019454) United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division Telecommunications & Media Enforcement Section 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 7000 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 598-8796 Facsimile: (202) 514-6381 Email: [email protected] *LEAD ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED United States District Court for the District of Columbia

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Centurylink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc., Defendants.

    Civil Action No: 1:17-cv-2028 Judge: Ketanji Brown Jackson
    [PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

    WHEREAS, Plaintiff, United States of America, filed its Complaint on October 2, 2017, the United States and defendants, CenturyLink, Inc. and Level 3 Communications, Inc., by their respective attorneys, have consented to the entry of this Final Judgment without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and without this Final Judgment constituting any evidence against or admission by any party regarding any issue of fact or law;

    AND WHEREAS, defendants agree to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment pending its approval by the Court;

    AND WHEREAS, the essence of this Final Judgment is the prompt and certain divestiture of certain rights or assets by the defendants to assure that competition is not substantially lessened;

    AND WHEREAS, the United States requires defendants to make certain divestitures for the purpose of remedying the loss of competition alleged in the Complaint;

    AND WHEREAS, defendants have represented to the United States that the divestitures required below can and will be made and that defendants will later raise no claim of hardship or difficulty as grounds for asking the Court to modify any of the divestiture provisions contained below;

    NOW THEREFORE, before any testimony is taken, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and upon consent of the parties, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:

    I. JURISDICTION

    This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and each of the parties to this action. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 18).

    II. DEFINITIONS

    As used in this Final Judgment:

    A. “Acquirer” or “Acquirers” means the entity or entities to whom defendants divest the Divestiture Assets.

    B. “CenturyLink” means defendant CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation with its headquarters in Monroe, Louisiana, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    C. “Level 3” means defendant Level 3 Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Broomfield, Colorado, its successors and assigns, and its subsidiaries, divisions, groups, affiliates, partnerships, and joint ventures, and their directors, officers, managers, agents, and employees.

    D. “Customer Premises Equipment” means equipment located on the customer premises side of the demarcation point with the telecommunications service provider and used to serve one customer at the location.

    E. “Dark Fiber” means fiber optic strands provided without electronic or optronic equipment.

    F. “Divestiture Assets” means the MSA Divestiture Assets and the Intercity Dark Fiber Assets.

    G. “Divestiture MSA” means, separately, the MSAs of (1) Albuquerque, New Mexico; (2) Boise City-Nampa, Idaho; and (3) Tucson, Arizona.

    H. “Gateway Location,” means a facility in or near an MSA where intercity fiber terminates and connects with a Metropolitan Area Network and/or other intercity fiber.

    I. “Intercity Dark Fiber Assets” means IRUs for 24 strands of Dark Fiber in the same cable, if available, or if not available in the same cable, then in the same duct bank, on the Intercity Routes and any Dark Fiber necessary to connect any Intercity Route with another Intercity Route that terminates at a different Gateway Location in the same MSA. The term “Intercity Dark Fiber Assets” shall be construed as broadly as necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Final Judgment and any IRU shall provide the following:

    (1) A term of twenty-five (25) years, with two options to extend for two (2) additional five (5) year terms (for a total of ten (10) years), exercisable at the Acquirer's sole discretion at any time during the initial 25-year term so long as written notice is provided to the defendants at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of the IRU term, and, for each five-year renewal term, at a price not to exceed 20% of the fee initially paid by the Acquirer for the Intercity Dark Fiber Assets;

    (2) Subject to the approval of the United States, in its sole discretion, customary terms and conditions, including terms regarding respective operations and maintenance rights and obligations; fiber quality, testing, and technical performance; access; and cooperation;

    (3) The right to assign the IRU, in whole or in part, without the consent of defendants; and

    (4) All additional rights defendants have that are necessary (including, as needed, rights to access and occupy space in defendants' facilities) to enable the Acquirer or its assignee to provide telecommunications services using the Intercity Dark Fiber Assets.

    J. “Intercity Routes” means Dark Fiber connecting the endpoints specified in Appendix B.

    K. “IRU” means indefeasible right of use, a long-term leasehold interest that gives the holder the exclusive right to use specified fiber optic strands in a telecommunications facility for a stated term.

    L. “Lateral Connection” means fiber optic strands, from the demarcation point in a building, including any equipment at the demarcation point necessary to connect the fiber to Customer Premises Equipment, to the point at which such fiber optic strands are spliced with other fiber optic strands that serve multiple buildings, and any existing related duct, conduit, or other containing or support structure.

    M. “Majority MSA Customers” means MSA Customers for which, as of August 2017, Level 3's monthly recurring revenues were greater in the Divestiture MSAs than outside the Divestiture MSAs.

    N. “Metropolitan Area Network” means fiber optic strands that are used to connect Lateral Connections to one another and to Gateway Locations and any existing related duct, conduit or other containing or support structure.

    O. “MSA” means Metropolitan Statistical Area, as defined by the Office of Management and Budget.

    P. “MSA Customers” means customers who purchase telecommunications services from Level 3 at a location within any of the Divestiture MSAs, but shall not include the customers listed in Appendix A.

    Q. “MSA Divestiture Assets” means all Level 3 assets, tangible and intangible, used exclusively or primarily to support Level 3's provision of telecommunications services to customer locations in the Divestiture MSAs, including, but not limited to, Lateral Connections, Metropolitan Area Network; ownership and access rights to all ducts, conduit, and other containing or support structure used by Level 3 to operate or augment such Lateral Connections and Metropolitan Area Network; and all switching, routing, amplification, co-location, or other telecommunications equipment used in or associated with those networks in each Divestiture MSA, up to Level 3's Gateway Location(s) in each Divestiture MSA. The MSA Divestiture Assets shall also include other assets used by Level 3 for its provision of telecommunications services to customer locations in each Divestiture MSA, including, but not limited to, all licenses, permits and authorizations related to the MSA Divestiture Assets issued by any governmental organization to the extent that such licenses, permits and authorizations are transferrable and such transfer would not prevent Level 3 from providing telecommunications services in the three Divestiture MSAs; all contracts (except as otherwise excluded by the terms of this Final Judgment), teaming arrangements, agreements, leases, commitments, certifications, and understandings, including supply agreements; all MSA Customer lists (including the name of each MSA Customer and each Majority MSA Customer, the address of each MSA Customer location within the Divestiture MSAs, and the address of each Majority MSA Customer location within the Divestiture MSAs and outside the Divestiture MSAs); all repair and performance records relating to the MSA Divestiture Assets; and all other records relating to the MSA Divestiture Assets reasonably required to permit the Acquirer to conduct a thorough due diligence review of and to operate the MSA Divestiture Assets. The MSA Divestiture Assets shall not include assets, wherever located, used exclusively or primarily in or in support of Level 3's provision of telecommunications services outside the Divestiture MSAs, including the provision of telecommunications services between MSAs.

    The term “MSA Divestiture Assets” shall be construed as broadly as necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Final Judgment and is subject to the following:

    (1) The MSA Divestiture Assets shall not include Customer Premises Equipment in a location in a Divesture MSA currently owned by Level 3 unless and until the customer chooses the Acquirer as its supplier pursuant to Section IV(K) for that location; and

    (2) Level 3's contracts to provide telecommunications services to customers are not included as MSA Divestiture Assets, but are subject to the process specified in Sections IV(K) and IV(L) of this Final Judgment.

    III. APPLICABILITY

    A. This Final Judgment applies to CenturyLink and Level 3, as defined above, and all other persons in active concert or participation with any of them who receive actual notice of this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise.

    B. If, prior to complying with Section IV, Section V, and Section VI of this Final Judgment, defendants sell or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all of their assets or of lesser business units that include the Divestiture Assets, they shall require the purchaser to be bound by the provisions of this Final Judgment. Defendants need not obtain such an agreement from the acquirers of the assets divested pursuant to this Final Judgment.

    IV. DIVESTITURE OF MSA DIVESTITURE ASSETS

    A. Defendants are ordered and directed, within 120 calendar days after the filing of the Complaint in this matter, or five (5) calendar days after notice of the entry of this Final Judgment by the Court, whichever is later, to divest the MSA Divestiture Assets in a manner consistent with this Final Judgment to an Acquirer or Acquirers in each Divestiture MSA and on terms acceptable to the United States, in its sole discretion. The United States, in its sole discretion, may agree to one or more extensions of this time period not to exceed sixty (60) calendar days in total, and shall notify the Court in such circumstances. If approval or consent from any government unit is necessary with respect to divestiture of the MSA Divestiture Assets by defendants or the Divestiture Trustee and if applications or requests for approval or consent have been filed with the appropriate governmental unit within five (5) calendar days after the United States provides written notice pursuant to Section VII(E) that it does not object to the proposed Acquirer, but an order or other dispositive action on such applications has not been issued before the end of the period permitted for divestiture, the period shall be extended with respect to divestiture of those MSA Divestiture Assets for which governmental approval or consent has not been issued until five (5) calendar days after such approval or consent is received. Defendants agree to use their best efforts to divest the MSA Divestiture Assets and to seek all necessary regulatory or other approvals or consents necessary for such divestitures as expeditiously as possible.

    B. In accomplishing the divestitures ordered by this Final Judgment, defendants promptly shall make known, by usual and customary means, the availability of the entire MSA Divestiture Assets. Defendants shall inform any person making an inquiry regarding a possible purchase of the MSA Divestiture Assets that they are being divested pursuant to this Final Judgment and provide that person with a copy of this Final Judgment. Defendants shall offer to furnish to all prospective Acquirers, subject to customary confidentiality assurances, all information and documents relating to the MSA Divestiture Assets customarily provided in a due diligence process except such information or documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Defendants shall make available such information to the United States at the same time that such information is made available to any other person.

    C. With respect to each Divestiture MSA, defendants shall provide the Acquirer of MSA Divestiture Assets and the United States information relating to the personnel whose primary responsibilities relate to the operation of any MSA Divestiture Asset to enable the Acquirer to make offers of employment. Defendants will not interfere with any negotiations by the Acquirer to employ such personnel.

    D. Defendants shall permit prospective Acquirers of the MSA Divestiture Assets to have reasonable access to personnel and to make inspections of the physical facilities of the MSA Divestiture Assets; access to any and all environmental, zoning, title, right-of-way, and other permit documents and information; and access to any and all financial, operational, or other documents and information customarily provided as part of a due diligence process.

    E. Defendants shall warrant to any Acquirer(s) that the MSA Divestiture Assets will be operational on the date of sale.

    F. Defendants shall not take any action that will impede in any way the permitting, operation, or divestiture of the MSA Divestiture Assets.

    G. Subject to approval by the United States, defendants may enter into a negotiated contract with each Acquirer of MSA Divestiture Assets for a period of two (2) years from the closing date of the divestiture of the MSA Divestiture Assets, under which the Acquirer would provide to defendants all Lateral Connections and associated Metropolitan Area Network needed to support Level 3 customers in the applicable Divestiture MSA that choose to remain customers of defendants.

    H. At the option of the Acquirer(s), defendants shall enter into a Transition Services Agreement for any services that are reasonably necessary for the Acquirer(s) to maintain, operate, provision, monitor, or otherwise support the MSA Divestiture Assets, including any required back office and information technology services, for a period of up to twelve (12) months. The United States, in its sole discretion, may approve one or more extensions of this agreement for a total of up to an additional twelve (12) months. Defendants shall perform all duties and provide all services required of defendants under the Transition Services Agreement. The terms and conditions of any contractual arrangement meant to satisfy this provision must be reasonably related to market conditions. Any amendments, modifications or extensions of the Transition Services Agreement maybe entered into only with the approval of the United States, in its sole discretion.

    I. Defendants shall use their best efforts to obtain from any third parties that provide Level 3, on a leased or IRU basis, Lateral Connections and Metropolitan Area Network in the Divestiture MSAs any consent necessary to transfer, assign, or sublease to the Acquirer the contract(s) for such Lateral Connections or Metropolitan Area Network to the extent related to the MSA Divestiture Assets and will effectuate the transfer, assignment, or sublease of such contract(s) to the Acquirer. The Acquirer and defendants may enter into a commercial services agreement to replace the service provided by any Level 3 Lateral Connections and Metropolitan Area Network in the Divestiture MSAs currently provided to Level 3 on a leased or IRU basis (1) if, because of withheld consent, the parties are unable to transfer, assign, or sublease to the Acquirer any contract(s) for such Lateral Connections or Metropolitan Area Network in the Divestiture MSAs currently provided to Level 3 on a leased or IRU basis; or (2) at the option of the Acquirer and subject to approval by the United States, in its sole discretion. Defendants shall use their best efforts to obtain from any third parties that provide Level 3 rights of way, access rights, or any other rights to operate, expand, or extend Lateral Connections or Metropolitan Area Network in the Divestiture MSAs any consent necessary to transfer such rights to the Acquirer(s).

    J. Defendants shall warrant to the Acquirer(s) that they are not aware of any material defects in the environmental, zoning, title, right-of-way, or other permits pertaining to the operation of each asset, and that following the sale of the MSA Divestiture Assets, defendants will not undertake, directly or indirectly, any challenges to the environmental, zoning, title, right-of-way, or other permits relating to the operation of the MSA Divestiture Assets.

    K. For each Divestiture MSA, beginning on the closing date of the sale of the MSA Divestiture Assets and continuing for a period of the lesser of two (2) years from the closing date of the sale or the expiration of an MSA Customer's contract, provided the expiration is at least thirty (30) days after the closing date of the sale, defendants shall

    (1) release the MSA Customers from their contractual obligations for any otherwise applicable termination fees for telecommunications services provided by Level 3 at locations within the applicable Divestiture MSA, in order to enable any MSA Customers, without penalty or delay, to elect to use the Acquirer for provision of such telecommunications services, and

    (2) for any Majority MSA Customers, defendants shall release such customers from their contractual obligations for all Level 3 services for any otherwise applicable termination fees charged by defendants, at all locations serviced by Level 3, even if located outside the applicable Divestiture MSA, provided that defendants and Acquirer shall each be required to pay half of any third-party fees associated with the termination of delivery of telecommunications services to each Majority MSA Customer at each terminated location outside the Divestiture MSAs, in order to enable these customers, without penalty imposed by defendants or delay, to elect to use the Acquirer for the provision of such telecommunications services.

    L. For a period of two (2) years following the entry of this Final Judgment, defendants shall not initiate customer-specific communications to solicit any MSA Customer or Majority MSA Customer to provide any telecommunications services to locations for which such customers have elected to use an Acquirer as its provider of telecommunications services pursuant to the process specified in Section IV(K) of this Final Judgment; provided however, that defendants may (1) respond to inquiries and enter into negotia