Federal Register Vol. 82, No.34,

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

Comments regarding this information collection received by March 24, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

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

Title: WIC Food Package Costs and Cost Containment Study.

OMB Control Number: 0584—NEW.

Summary of Collection: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides supplemental foods to safeguard the health of low-income pregnant and post-partum women, infants, and children up to 5 years of age who are at nutritional risk. In an effort to ensure the best use of available funds and to provide for participation by eligible individuals, WIC State agencies (SA) are responsible for implementing food package and other cost containment measures. This study will gather information on the cost-containment practices.

Need and Use of the Information: The purpose of this study is to gather information on the major types of cost containment practices used by the 90 WIC SAs, assess the effectiveness of various practices, and identify those practices that effectively constrain the cost of WIC foods with few or no adverse effects on program outcomes. To fulfill this purpose, primary and administrative data will be collected from WIC SA directors, WIC SA staff, WIC participants, and former WIC participants. FNS will use the findings from this study to share with WIC SAs food item cost containment practices that are effective at reducing WIC food costs, as recommended by the OIG.

Description of Respondents: Individuals or households, and State, Local, or Tribal Government.

Number of Respondents: 6,565.

Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion.

Total Burden Hours: 2,356.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Virginia Port Authority, grantee of FTZ 20, requesting the expansion of Subzone 20E to include an additional site of STIHL Incorporated, located in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on February 6, 2017.

Subzone 20E was approved on April 24, 2009 (Board Order 1612, 74 FR 21623, May 8, 2009) and consists of five sites (86.56 acres). They are as follows: Site 1 (47.02 acres)—536 Viking Drive, Virginia Beach; Site 2 (19.52 acres)—2525 International Parkway, Virginia Beach; Site 3 (7.14 acres)—601 Central Drive, Virginia Beach; Site 4 (10.26 acres)—825 London Bridge Road, Virginia Beach; and, Site 5 (2.62 acres)—528 Viking Drive, Virginia Beach. The applicant is requesting authority to expand the subzone to include an additional site: Proposed Site 6 (45 acres)—2600 International Parkway, Virginia Beach. The existing subzone and the proposed site would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 20. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

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 April 3, 2017. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to April 18, 2017.

A copy of the application 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 Kathleen Boyce at [email protected] or (202) 482-1346.

The Louisville and Jefferson County Riverport Authority, grantee of FTZ 29, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. (Hitachi), located in Harrodsburg, Kentucky. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 6, 2017.

Hitachi already has authority to produce automotive components within Subzone 29F of FTZ 29. The current request would add an additional finished product to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Hitachi from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Hitachi would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to fuel rail assemblies (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

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 April 3, 2017.

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 Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

The Ports of Indiana, grantee of FTZ 177, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Toyota Motor Manufacturing Indiana, Inc. (Toyota), located in Princeton, Indiana. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 3, 2017.

Toyota already has authority to produce light-duty passenger vehicles (pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles, minivans) within FTZ Subzone 177B. The current request would add automotive vehicles to the scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/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 Toyota from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Toyota would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to passenger vehicles and passenger hybrid vehicles (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign-status materials/components noted below and in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

The materials/components sourced from abroad include: Plastic labels; hole covers; seal tape; rubber belts; steel self tapping screws; steel pins; steel nuts; steel tension springs; steel rings; steel clamps; steel clips; steel plugs; aluminum nuts; zinc retainers; zinc nuts; fans; lead-acid batteries; nickel-metal hydride batteries; lithium-ion batteries; speakers; transmitters; receivers; radio switches; televisions; plug assemblies; sockets; switches; plastic terminal covers; remotes; controls; keys; insulated electric wires; and, cigarette lighters (duty rate ranges from 2.6% to 8.6%).

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 April 3, 2017.

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 Juanita H. Chen at [email protected] or (202) 482-1378.

Take notice that on February 13, 2016, Merchant Energy Services, Inc. submitted its Compliance Filing to Order on Rehearing of Opinion No. 536-C.1

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 6, 2017.

Take notice that on February 15, 2017, pursuant to section 211 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824j, and Part 36 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part 36, Tull Wind LLC submitted an application for an order directing the provision of interconnection and transmission service.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 8, 2017.

Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:

a. Type of Proceeding: Extension of License Term.

b. Project No.: P-5000-072.

c. Date Filed: January 4, 2017.

d. Licensee: Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC.

e. Name and Location of Project: Kayuta Lake Hydroelectric Project, located on the Black River in Oneida County, New York.

f. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.

g. Licensee Contact Information: Mr. Ian Chow, Asset Manager, Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC, 717 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 1A, Boston, MA 02111, Phone: (416) 643-6616.

h. FERC Contact: Mr. Ashish Desai, (202) 502-8370, [email protected].

i. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, and recommendations, using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-5000-072.

j. Description of Proceeding: The licensee, Ampersand Kayuta Lake Hydro, LLC, requests the Commission extend the term of the license, from August 31, 2024 to May 31, 2026. The licensee received a 40-year license for the project on September 12, 1984. The licensee states that in order to facilitate a basin-wide relicensing approach with several other nearby projects, it needs to extend the license term to synchronize the license expiration dates with those other projects. The licensee's request includes letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation supporting the license extension.

k. This notice is available for review and reproduction at the Commission in the Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the Docket number (P-5000-072) excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the notice. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected]. For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.

m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.

n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “PROTEST”, or “MOTION TO INTERVENE” as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate to the request to extend the license term. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Eastern Market Access Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP (DCP) in Charles County, Maryland and Loudoun and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before March 17, 2017.

If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the opening of this docket on November 15, 2016, you will need to file those comments in Docket No. CP17-15-000 to ensure they are considered as part of this proceeding.

This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for this project. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

DCP provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP17-15-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

(4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping session its staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows:

The primary goal of this scoping session is to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the EA to be prepared for this project. Individual verbal comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of verbal comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted.

The scoping session is scheduled from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. Eastern Time Zone. You may arrive at any time after 3:30 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff when the session opens. If you wish to speak, the Commission staff will hand out numbers in the order of your arrival; distribution of numbers will be discontinued at 7:00 p.m. Please see appendix 1 for additional information on the session format and conduct.1

Your scoping comments will be recorded by the court reporter (with FERC staff or representative present) and become part of the public record for this proceeding. Transcripts will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 5 minutes may be implemented for each commentor.

It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the comment session to answer your questions about the environmental review process. Representatives from DCP will also be present to answer project-specific questions.

DCP proposes to provide 294 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas firm transportation service to Washington Gas Light Company and to fuel a new power generation facility, the Mattawoman Energy Center, proposed by Mattawoman Energy, LLC. DCP's proposed project facilities are in Maryland and Virginia.

The project would consist of the following facilities:

• A new 24,370 horsepower (hp) natural gas compressor station and ancillary facilities in Charles County, Maryland;

• two new taps for customer delivery at the existing WGL Interconnect in Charles County, Maryland;

• One new 7,000 hp electric reciprocating compression unit and discharge gas cooler, replacement of three gas coolers and compression cylinders for three existing reciprocating compressors, and an increase discharge piping to 30-inches diameter at the existing Loudoun Compressor Station in Loudoun County, Virginia;

• one new meter building to enclose existing equipment at the Loudoun Metering and Regulating Station in Loudoun County, Virginia.

• Pleasant Valley Compressor Station (Fairfax County, Virginia):

• Re-wheel compressor on one existing 17,400 hp electric unit and upgrade two gas coolers at the Pleasant Valley Compressor Station in Fairfax County, Virginia.

The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.

Construction of the proposed facilities would impact 48.3 acres of land during construction, with 18.9 acres maintained for operation of the facilities. The remaining 29.4 acres would be restored and revert to former uses. Construction would occur within DCP-owned lands, or within existing, maintained DCP rights-of-way.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us 2 to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.

In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed project under these general headings:

• Geology and soils;

• land use and socioeconomics;

• water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

• cultural resources;

• vegetation and wildlife;

• air quality and noise;

• endangered and threatened species;

• public safety; and

• cumulative impacts.

We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.

The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA will be available in the public record through eLibrary. We will publish and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.

With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA.3 Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO), and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on historic properties.4 We will define the project-specific Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.

The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed project.

Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the “Document-less Intervention Guide” under the “e-filing” link on the Commission's Web site. Motions to intervene are more fully described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search” and enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-15-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

Finally, public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

Docket Numbers: EC17-79-000.

Applicants: American Transmission Company LLC, Duke-American Transmission Company, LLC, ATC Management Inc.

Description: Application for Authorization for Corporate Reorganization and Request for Confidential Treatment and Certain Waivers of American Transmission Company LLC, et. al.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5214.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

Docket Numbers: EG17-60-000.

Applicants: RE Tranquillity 8 Amarillo LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of RE Tranquillity 8 Amarillo LLC.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5061.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: EG17-61-000.

Applicants: RE Tranquillity 8 Azul LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of RE Tranquillity 8 Azul LLC.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5063.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: EG17-62-000.

Applicants: RE Tranquillity 8 Rojo LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of RE Tranquillity 8 Rojo LLC.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5067.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: EG17-63-000.

Applicants: RE Tranquillity 8 Verde LLC.

Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of RE Tranquillity 8 Verde LLC.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5069.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

Docket Numbers: ER10-1437-005; ER10-2732-013; ER10-2733-013; ER10-2734-013; ER10-2736-013; ER10-2737-013; ER10-2741-013; ER10-2749-013; ER10-2752-013; ER12-2492-009; ER12-2493-009; ER12-2494-009; ER12-2495-009; ER12-2496-009; ER16-2455-003; ER16-2456-003; ER16-2457-003; ER16-2458-003; ER16-2459-003.

Applicants: Tampa Electric Company, Emera Energy Services Inc., Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc, Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 2, Inc., Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 2 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 5 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 7 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 8 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 10 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 13 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 14 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC.

Description: Notice of Change in Status of the Emera Entities.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5095.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-259-002.

Applicants: Darby Power, LLC.

Description: Compliance filing: Darby Power, LLC Reactive Service Compliance Filing to be effective1/30/2017.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5174.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-260-002.

Applicants: Gavin Power, LLC.

Description: Compliance filing: Gavin Power, LLC Reactive Service Compliance Filing to be effective1/30/2017.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5179.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-261-002.

Applicants: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC.

Description: Compliance filing: Lawrenceburg Power, LLC Reactive Service Compliance Filing to be effective 1/30/2017.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5185.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-262-002.

Applicants: Waterford Power, LLC.

Description: Compliance filing: Waterford Power, LLC Reactive Service Compliance Filing to be effective 1/30/2017.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5190.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-386-001.

Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance: Remove emissions controls from peaking plant design to be effective 1/17/2017.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5011.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-549-001.

Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: Compliance filing: NYISO compliance re: Effective date for revised fixed block unit pricing logic to be effective 2/28/2017.

Filed Date: 2/14/17.

Accession Number: 20170214-5138.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-884-001.

Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

Description: Tariff Amendment: NMPC amendment filing re: Corrections to TSC formula rate template to be effective 4/1/2017.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5018.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-971-000.

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4629; Queue No. AB2-097 to be effective 1/23/2017.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5017.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-972-000.

Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement No. 4622; Queue No. AB2-045 to be effective 1/26/2017.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5038.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

Docket Numbers: ER17-973-000.

Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Attachment O Reflecting the Current ITPNT Schedule to be effective 4/16/2017.

Filed Date: 2/15/17.

Accession Number: 20170215-5084.

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/8/17.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202) 523-5793 or [email protected].

Agreement No.: 012461.

Title: Maersk Line/HSDG Space Charter Agreement.

Parties: Maersk Line A/S and Hamburg Sud.

Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes Maersk Line to charter space to Hamburg Sud in the trades between the U.S. on the one hand, and North Europe, Asia, Mexico and the Bahamas on the other hand.

Agreement No.: 012462.

Title: THE Alliance/CMA CGM Space Charter Agreement.

Parties: Hapag Lloyd; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd.; Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd.; Nippon Yusen Kaisha; Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp.; and CMA CGM S.A.

Filing Party: Joshua Stein; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes members of THE Alliance to charter space in the trade between North Europe and the U.S. Pacific Coast to CMA CGM, and authorizes the Parties to enter into arrangements related to the chartering of such space.

Agreement No.: 012463.

Title: Maersk/MSC/HMM Strategic Cooperation Agreement.

Parties: Maersk Line A/S; MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA; and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., Ltd.

Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes Maersk Line and MSC to exchange slots with HMM in the trade between Asia and the U.S. West Coast. The agreement also authorizes Maersk Line and MSC to charter space to HMM in the trades between (a) Asia and the U.S. East Coast and (b) North Europe and the U.S. East Coast.

Agreement No.: 012464.

Title: NYK/CMA CGM Space Charter Agreement.

Parties: Nippon Yusen Kaisha and CMA CGM S.A.

Filing Party: Joshua Stein; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 19th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

Synopsis: The Agreement authorizes NYK to charter space to CMA CGM in the trade between the U.S. West Coast and Japan, and also authorizes the parties to enter into arrangements related to the chartering of such space.

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 March 6, 2017.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

1. Peter W. Simon and Christopher W. Simon, both of Hardin, Illinois; collectively as a group acting in concert to acquire voting shares of BCC Bancshares, Inc., Hardin, Illinois, and thereby acquire shares of Bank of Calhoun County, Hardin, Illinois.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. Franklin G. Larson Revocable Trust, Franklin G. Larson trustee, Valley City, North Dakota; Mary JoAndrea Larson Revocable Trust, Mary JoAndrea Larson trustee, Valley City, North Dakota; Mary JoAndrea Larson Irrevocable Spousal Trust, Franklin G. Larson, trustee, Valley City, North Dakota; Scott M. Larson, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Wyatt Larson Irrevocable Trust, Scott Larson trustee, Stillwater, Oklahoma; Michael J. Larson, Fargo, North Dakota; Heidi J. Barranger, Zephyr Cove, Nevada; Nicholas Barranger, Fountain Hills, Arizona; Michelle Larson, Bismarck, North Dakota; Paige Larson 2015 Irrevocable Trust 1, First Lawyers Trust Company Joel Black trustee, Rapid City, South Dakota; and Annika Larson 2015 Irrevocable Trust 1, First Lawyers Trust Company Joel Black trustee, Rapid City, South Dakota; to retain shares and thereby join the Larson Family Group, that controls through the Larson Family Stock Transfer Agreement, voting shares of Starion Bancorporation, Bismarck, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly control Starion Bank, Bismarck, North Dakota.

C. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

1. Henry W. Bethard V and Benjamin T. Bethard, to retain voting shares of Coushatta Bancshares, Inc., Coushatta, Louisiana, and thereby retain shares of Bank of Coushatta, Coushatta, Louisiana, and to join the Bethard family group, a group acting in concert.

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 March 3, 2017.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

1. Anton J. Zueger, Walnut, Illinois; Doris Zueger, Bronschofen, Switzerland; Markus Fisch, Walnut, Illinois; Marlies Fisch, Walnut, Illinois; Patrick Fisch, Walnut, Illinois; Gabriella Fisch, Walnut, Illinois; and Alex Fisch, Walnut, Illinois; as group acting in concert to acquire 10 percent or more of the common stock of Citizens Bancshares, Inc. Walnut, Illinois, and thereby indirectly control Citizens First State Bank of Walnut, Walnut, Illinois.

2. R. Bruce Atherton, Walnut, Illinois; Patricia L. Atherton, Walnut, Illinois; Jeanne L. Atherton, Walnut, Illinois; and Shari Sterennberg, Chatsworth, Illinois; as a group acting in concert, to acquire voting shares of Citizens Bancshares, Inc. Walnut, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Citizens First State Bank of Walnut, Walnut, Illinois.

B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. Patrick Artz, Richard Kornkven, and Monte Mikkelsen, all of Bottineau, North Dakota; to each acquire voting shares of State Bank of Bottineau Holding Company, Bottineau, North Dakota, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of State Bank of Bottineau, Bottineau, North Dakota.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 14, 2017.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

1. First Interstate BancSystem, Inc., Billings, Montana; to acquire 100 percent of Cascade Bancorp, Inc., Bend, Oregon, and thereby acquire Bank of the Cascades, Bend, Oregon.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 13, 2017.

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

1. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee; to merge with BNC Bancorp, High Point, North Carolina, and thereby acquire Bank of North Carolina, Thomasville, North Carolina.

Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors.

The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will also be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting Web site (http://videocast.nih.gov/).

Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials and Translation Research Advisory Committee, March 8, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to March 8, 2017, 3:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Rooms 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2017, 81 FR 3342.

This meeting notice is amended to change the meeting format and start and end times. The meeting will now be held virtually from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. due to a change in the agenda which reduced the time required for deliberation and discussion. The meeting will still be held at the National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C-Wing, 6th Floor, Rooms 9 and 10, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 and can also be accessed via NIH Videocast at https://videocast.nih.gov. This meeting is open to the public.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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.

Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Drug Abuse Special Emphasis Panel, February 17, 2017, 12:00 p.m. to February 17, 2017, 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 which was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2017, 82 16 FR 2017-01737.

This meeting was amended to change the date and time and will now be held on March 29, 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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.

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), 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.

Feel free to share this information with other interested members of your organization or association.

Members of the public who are pre-registered and later require cancellation, please do so in advance of the meeting by accessing one (1) of the following links: https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=104 to cancel an in person registration, or https://apps.cbp.gov/te_reg/cancel.asp?w=103 to cancel a webinar registration.

On September 27, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Robert Markman, M.D. (hereinafter, Applicant), of Northridge, California. GX 1, at 1. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Applicant's application for a Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, on the ground that he does not hold authority to dispense controlled substances in California, the State in which he seeks registration. Id.

As the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on December 30, 2013, Applicant applied for a registration as “a practitioner in [s]chedules II-V,” at a proposed registered location in Northridge, California. Id. As the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective on August 17, 2016, the Medical Board of California (MBC) issued an order revoking Applicant's “authority to practice medicine due to [his] conviction of a criminal offense substantially related to the qualification, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon.” Id. at 1-2. The Order then alleged that Applicant is “without authority to handle controlled substances in . . . California, the [S]tate in which [he is] attempting to register with the” Agency, and that as consequence, his application must be denied. Id.

The Show Cause Order notified Applicant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43). The Show Cause Order also notified Applicant of his right to submit a corrective action plan. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C)).

On October 5, 2016, a Diversion Investigator assigned to the Los Angeles Field Division personally served the Show Cause Order on Applicant. GX 3. On January 13, 2017, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action (cited as RFAA) and an evidentiary record to support its proposed action. In its Request, the Government represents that Applicant “has not filed a request for a hearing or a written statement.” Gov. Request for Final Agency Action, at 1.

Based on the record and the Government's representation, I find that since the date on which Applicant was served with the Show Cause Order, more than 30 days have now passed and neither Applicant, nor anyone purporting to represent him, has requested a hearing or submitted a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing. Accordingly, I find that Applicant has waived his right to a hearing and his right to submit a written statement. 21 CFR 1301.43(d). I therefore issue this Decision and Order based on the record submitted by the Government. Id. § 1301.43(e). I make the following findings.

On December 30, 2013, Applicant applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration, seeking authority to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner. GX 2A, at 1. Applicant proposed an address in Northridge, California as his registered location, and provided the number of his California license. Id.

Applicant was also the holder of Physician's and Surgeon's certificate No. G27953 which was issued by the MBC. GX 2B, at 1, 3. However, on July 18, 2016, the MBC adopted the proposed decision of a state administrative law judge (ALJ) which found that Applicant had been “convicted of a criminal offense substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon” and that “[s]uch also constituted unprofessional conduct.” Id. at 1, 24. The state ALJ also found that Applicant “failed to offer even minimal evidence of rehabilitation and this prevents the Board from giving any consideration to continuing his probation at this time' and that “[p]ublic protection demands that [his] medical license be revoked.” Id. at 24.

While the MBC's Order was to become effective on August 17, 2016, according to the Board's online records (of which I take official notice 1 ), on August 16, Applicant sought reconsideration and the MBC stayed its order to allow it “to review and consider” his petition. However, on August 26, 2016, the MBC denied Applicant's petition and the revocation became effective at 5 p.m. that day. I therefore find that Applicant does not possess authority under the laws of California to dispense controlled substances. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 2051 (“The physician's and surgeon's certificate authorizes the holder to use drugs . . . in or upon human beings . . . in the treatment of diseases, injuries, deformities, and other physical and mental conditions”); id. § 2052 (“any person who . . . prescribes for any . . . deformity, disease . . . injury, or other physical or mental condition of any person, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked, or unsuspended certificate as provided in this chapter . . . is guilty of a public offense”).

Under the Controlled Substances Act, a practitioner must be currently authorized to dispense controlled substances “under the laws of the State in which he practices” in order to obtain and maintain a practitioner's registration. See 21 U.S.C. 823(f) (“T]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.”); see also id. § 802(21) (defining “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[ ] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice”).

Thus, with respect to a practitioner, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”); 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) (authorizing revocation “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances”).

As found above, by virtue of the MBC's Order, Applicant currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in California, the State in which he seeks registration, and is not entitled to be registered. Accordingly, I will order that his application be denied.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that the application of Robert Markman, M.D., for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a practitioner, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective March 24, 2017.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Section 32(a)(2) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a 31(a)(2)) (“Act”) requires that the selection of a registered management investment company's or registered face-amount certificate company's (collectively, “funds”) independent public accountant be submitted to shareholders for ratification or rejection. Rule 32a-4 under the Investment Company Act (17 CFR 270.32a-4) exempts a fund from this requirement if, among other things, the fund has an audit committee consisting entirely of independent directors. The rule permits continuing oversight of a fund's accounting and auditing processes by an independent audit committee in place of a shareholder vote.

Among other things, in order to rely on rule 32a-4, a fund's board of directors must adopt an audit committee charter and must preserve that charter, and any modifications to the charter, permanently in an easily accessible place. The purpose of these conditions is to ensure that Commission staff will be able to monitor the duties and responsibilities of an audit committee of a fund relying on the rule.

Commission staff estimates that on average the board of directors takes 15 minutes to adopt the audit committee charter. Commission staff has estimated that with an average of 8 directors on the board,1 total director time to adopt the charter is 2 hours. Combined with an estimated 1/2 hour of paralegal time to prepare the charter for board review, the staff estimates a total one-time collection of information burden of 21/2 hours for each fund. Once a board adopts an audit committee charter, the charter is preserved as part of the fund's records. Commission staff estimates that there is no annual hourly burden associated with preserving the charter in accordance with this rule.2

Because virtually all existing funds have now adopted audit committee charters, the annual one-time collection of information burden associated with adopting audit committee charters is limited to the burden incurred by newly established funds. Commission staff estimates that fund sponsors establish approximately 112 new funds each year,3 and that all of these funds will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the annual one-time hour burden associated with adopting an audit committee charter under rule 32a-4 is approximately 280 hours.4

When funds adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4, they also may incur one-time costs related to hiring outside counsel to prepare the charter. Commission staff estimates that those costs average approximately $1500 per fund.5 As noted above, Commission staff estimates that approximately 112 new funds each year will adopt an audit committee charter in order to rely on rule 32a-4. Thus, Commission staff estimates that the ongoing annual cost burden associated with rule 32a-4 in the future will be approximately $168,000.6

These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. The collections of information required by rule 32a-4 are necessary to obtain the benefits of the rule. The Commission is seeking OMB approval, because an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burdens of the collections of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burdens of the collections of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

On October 27, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change amending Rule 104—Equities to delete subsection (g)(i)(A)(III), which prohibits Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) from establishing, during the last ten minutes of trading before the close, a new high (low) price for the day on the Exchange in a security in which the DMM has a long (short) position (“Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.3

On December, 20, 2016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.4 The Commission has received no comments on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.

Currently, under Exchange Rule 104—Equities (g)(i)(A)(III), a DMM with a long (short) position in a security cannot, during the last ten minutes before the close of trading, make a purchase (sale) in that security that results in a new high (low) price on the Exchange for that day.5 The Exchange proposes to remove this prohibition from its rulebook.

The Exchange asserts that, in light of developments in the equity markets and in the Exchange's own trading model, Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) has lost its original purpose and utility.6 Specifically, the Exchange asserts that, in today's electronic marketplace, where DMMs have replaced specialists, and control of pricing decisions has moved away from market participants on the Exchange trading floor, the purpose behind the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition is no longer necessary, and eliminating the prohibition would not eliminate other existing safeguards that prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close.7

The Exchange argues that the rationale behind preventing specialists from setting the price of a security on the Exchange in the final ten minutes of trading was to prevent specialists from inappropriately influencing the price of a security at the close to advantage a specialist's proprietary position.8 In today's fragmented marketplace, according to the Exchange, a new high or low price for a security on the Exchange in the last ten minutes of trading does not have a significant effect on the market price for that security, because a new high or low price on the Exchange may not be the new high or low for a security—prices may be higher or lower in away markets, where the majority of intra-day trading in NYSEMKT-listed securities takes place—and because any advantage to a DMM by establishing a new high or low on the Exchange during the last ten minutes can rapidly evaporate following trades in away markets. Because DMMs do not have the ability to direct or influence trading, or to control intra-day prices, that specialists had before the implementation of Regulation NMS, the Exchange asserts, the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition is anachronistic.9

The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 10 to determine whether the proposal should be disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal, as discussed below. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposal.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act prohibits the rules of an exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

The Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition was originally approved as part of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”) pilot program called the “New Market Model 12 which was subsequently incorporated into the Exchange's rulebook.13 As the Commission stated when approving the NYSE proposal to conduct the New Market Model pilot, “[w]e carefully review trading rule proposals that seek to offer special advantages to market makers. Although an exchange may reward such participants for the benefits they provide to the exchange's market, such rewards must not be disproportionate to the services provided.” 14 In 2015, when the Commission approved the NYSE's proposal to make the New Market Model permanent,15 the Commission noted the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition,16 among many aspects of the New Market Model, and reiterated that the pilot program had been conducted, among other reasons, to seek “further evidence that the benefits proposed for DMMs are not disproportionate to their obligations.” 17

Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition—an obligation imposed on DMMs—thereby altering the existing set of obligations and benefits of DMM status. Accordingly, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the Exchange's proposal would maintain an appropriate balance between the benefits and obligations of being a DMM on the Exchange and whether the obligations of DMMs under remaining Exchange rules are reasonably designed to prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close in light of DMMs' special responsibility for closing auctions under Exchange rules.

The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.18

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be disapproved by March 15, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29, 2017.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-99 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 8, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to increase the BX Options Market port fees and institute a fee cap at Chapter XV Section 3.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

The purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the BX Options Market port fees and institute a fee cap at Chapter XV Section 3(b).3 The Exchange notes that it has not increased fees for the connectivity provided under the rule since its adoption in January 2015 4 notwithstanding that the costs that the Exchange incurs in offering the connectivity have increased. As described below, the Exchange is also proposing to limit the total amount that an Options Participant 5 may be assessed under the rule.

Under the Chapter XV Section 3(b), the Exchange assesses an Options Participant $200 per port, per month, per mnemonic 6 for Order Entry Ports,7 CTI Ports,8 BX Depth Ports,9 BX TOP Ports,10 and Order Entry DROP Ports 11 without a cap on how much a Participant is assessed.12 The Exchange is proposing to increase the fee assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic, which is consistent with the fees assessed by The NASDAQ Stock Market for comparable connectivity.13 The Exchange is also proposing to limit the amount a Participant must pay for the aforementioned connectivity provided under Chapter XV Section 3(b) to $7,500 per month.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,14 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,15 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

The Exchange believes that increasing the fee assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is reasonable because it is competitive with the fees of other exchanges. Specifically, The NASDAQ Stock Market assesses $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic for comparable connectivity under Nasdaq Options Market Rules Chapter XV, Section 3(b). Moreover, the Exchange notes that it has not increased fees for the connectivity provided under the rule since it adopted the connectivity options on January 2, 2015,16 notwithstanding that costs associated with offering and supporting the connectivity have increased, which include the cost of technology and infrastructure. The costs that the Exchange incurs is substantially similar to those that The NASDAQ Stock Market incurs, since both exchanges use the same hardware and support services for the ports. Thus, the Exchange has determined that $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is the appropriate fee that will allow it to cover its costs and realize a profit, while avoiding an overall reduction in the number of subscribers. The Exchange also believes that the proposed $7,500 fee cap is reasonable because, taken together with the proposed fee increase, it will allow the Exchange to cover costs while reducing the impact of the fees on Options Participants that subscribe to a large number of ports. Because Options Participants generally need an increasing number of ports as provided under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b) as their activity expands on the BX Options Market, the Exchange believes that without such a cap Options Participants may be inhibited from growing their activity on the Exchange. As a general principal, the Exchange believes that greater participation on the BX Options Market by Options Participants improves market quality for all market participants. Thus, in arriving at a fee cap of $7,500, the Exchange balanced the desire to improve market quality against the need to cover costs and make a profit.

The Exchange believes that increasing the fee assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports to $650 per port, per month, per mnemonic is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the increased fee will apply to all Options Participants that have, or are seeking, the connectivity provided under the rule. As noted above, the Exchange is increasing the fees under the rule to align them with the costs associated with offering the ports as well as to allow the Exchange to realize a profit. The Exchange believes that the proposed $7,500 fee cap is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the any Options Participant that subscribes to connectivity under the rule that would otherwise exceed $7,500 per month will have its fees capped. Although Options Participants that do not have fees under the rule in excess of $7,500 per month will not benefit from the fee cap, the Exchange notes that any Options Participant may increase the number of ports subscribed to receive the fee cap, should their activity on the BX Options Market warrant increased subscription. Moreover, Options Participants that do not qualify for the fee cap will benefit from the greater liquidity provided by Options Participants that conduct a sufficient level of activity on the BX Options Market to require connectivity in excess of the fee cap.

The Exchange notes that it is not amending or applying a fee limitation to SQF Port Fees, which are also provided under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b).17 The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the other port fees, as proposed herein, and not increase the fee assessed for SQF Port Fees because SQF Port Fees are used by BX market makers in connection with their market making activities. Unlike other Options Participants, BX market makers add value to the market through continuous quoting and a commitment of capital. The Exchange believes that not applying a limitation on fees to SQF Port Fees is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange has found that maintaining the separation between SQF ports and the other ports under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b) is appropriate given the different purposes for subscribing to the ports. Moreover, the Exchange does not believe that applying an independent fee limitation to SQF Port Fees is warranted at this juncture because of the limited number of SQF ports to which any single market maker subscribes.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.

In this instance, the proposed changes to the charges assessed for Order Entry Ports, CTI Ports, BX Depth Ports, BX TOP Ports, and Order Entry DROP Ports under BX Options Market Rules Chapter XV Section 3(b) do not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's connectivity services are completely voluntary and subject to extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange venues. To the extent that the changes are viewed unfavorably by Options Participants, the proposed fees increase and fee cap may result in the Exchange losing subscribership and market participation, which would likely benefit other exchanges and trading venues. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Options Participants or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.18

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BX-2017-009 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Form N-8B-4 (17 CFR 274.14) is the form used by face-amount certificate companies to comply with the filing and disclosure requirements imposed by Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8(b)). Among other items, Form N-8B-4 requires disclosure of the following information about the face-amount certificate company: Date and form of organization; controlling persons; current business and contemplated changes to the company's business; investment, borrowing, and lending policies, as well as other fundamental policies; securities issued by the company; investment adviser; depositaries; management personnel; compensation paid to directors, officers, and certain employees; and financial statements. The Commission uses the information provided in the collection of information to determine compliance with Section 8(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Form N-8B-4 and the burden of compliance have not changed since the last approval. Each registrant files Form N-8B-4 for its initial filing and does not file post-effective amendments to Form N-8B-4.1 Commission staff estimates that no respondents will file Form N-8B-4 each year. There are currently only four existing face-amount certificate companies, and none have filed a Form N-8B-4 in many years. No new face-amount certificate companies have been established since the last OMB information collection approval for this form, which occurred in 2014. Accordingly, the staff estimates that, each year, no face-amount certificate companies will file Form N-8B-4, and that the total burden for the information collection is zero hours. Although Commission staff estimates that there is no hour burden associated with Form N-8B-4, the staff is requesting a burden of one hour for administrative purposes. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of SEC rules and forms.

The information provided on Form N-8B-4 is mandatory. The information provided on Form N-8B-4 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit the existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

Rule 17f-5 (17 CFR 270.17f-5) under the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a] (the “Act”) governs the custody of the assets of registered management investment companies (“funds”) with custodians outside the United States. Under rule 17f-5, a fund or its foreign custody manager (as delegated by the fund's board) may maintain the fund's foreign assets in the care of an eligible fund custodian under certain conditions. If the fund's board delegates to a foreign custody manager authority to place foreign assets, the fund's board must find that it is reasonable to rely on each delegate the board selects to act as the fund's foreign custody manager. The delegate must agree to provide written reports that notify the board when the fund's assets are placed with a foreign custodian and when any material change occurs in the fund's custody arrangements. The delegate must agree to exercise reasonable care, prudence, and diligence, or to adhere to a higher standard of care. When the foreign custody manager selects an eligible foreign custodian, it must determine that the fund's assets will be subject to reasonable care if maintained with that custodian, and that the written contract that governs each custody arrangement will provide reasonable care for fund assets. The contract must contain certain specified provisions or others that provide at least equivalent care. The foreign custody manager must establish a system to monitor the performance of the contract and the appropriateness of continuing to maintain assets with the eligible foreign custodian.

The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-5 are intended to provide protection for fund assets maintained with a foreign bank custodian whose use is not authorized by statutory provisions that govern fund custody arrangements,1 and that is not subject to regulation and examination by U.S. regulators. The requirement that the fund board determine that it is reasonable to rely on each delegate is intended to ensure that the board carefully considers each delegate's qualifications to perform its responsibilities. The requirement that the delegate provide written reports to the board is intended to ensure that the delegate notifies the board of important developments concerning custody arrangements so that the board may exercise effective oversight. The requirement that the delegate agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances to the fund that the delegate will properly perform its duties.

The requirements that the foreign custody manager determine that fund assets will be subject to reasonable care with the eligible foreign custodian and under the custody contract, and that each contract contain specified provisions or equivalent provisions, are intended to ensure that the delegate has evaluated the level of care provided by the custodian, that it weighs the adequacy of contractual provisions, and that fund assets are protected by minimal contractual safeguards. The requirement that the foreign custody manager establish a monitoring system is intended to ensure that the manager periodically reviews each custody arrangement and takes appropriate action if developing custody risks may threaten fund assets.2

Commission staff estimates that each year, approximately 97 registrants 3 could be required to make an average of one response per registrant under rule 17f-5, requiring approximately 2.5 hours of board of director time per response, to make the necessary findings concerning foreign custody managers. The total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule is up to approximately 243 hours (97 registrants × 2.5 hours per registrant). The staff further estimates that during each year, approximately 15 global custodians 4 are required to make an average of 4 responses per custodian concerning the use of foreign custodians other than depositories. The staff estimates that each response will take approximately 270 hours, requiring approximately 1080 total hours annually per custodian (270 hours × 4 responses per custodian). The total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule is approximately 16,200 hours (15 global custodians × 1080 hours per custodian). Therefore, the total annual burden of all collection of information requirements of rule 17f-5 is estimated to be up to 16,443 hours (243 + 16,200). The total annual cost of burden hours is estimated to be $4,522,392 ((243 hours × $4,144/hour for board of director's time) + (16,200 hours × $217/hour for a trust administrator's time)).5 Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign custodians.

The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 3, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (“BX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality.

There is no rule text for this proposed rule change.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

BX is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality. The functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging was approved by the SEC on November 10, 2016,3 and the Trade-Now functionality was submitted on an immediately effective basis on November 8, 2016.4

Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, if the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order. However, the Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more, or (ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and subsequently provided liquidity.5

Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked, and displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced at $1.00 or more, or (ii) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Exchange Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Exchange Book and subsequently provided liquidity.6

BX also proposed to change its Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, so that, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.7

Under BX's Trade-Now functionality, participants could enter an instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against the locking sell (buy) order. BX proposed to offer the functionality on its OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols. Depending on the protocol used by the participant to access the BX system, the participant could either specify that the order execute against locking interest automatically, or the participant would be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the order has become locked. BX proposed to offer the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be sent to the BX book and that are not subject to other BX rules regarding the display and execution of those orders.8

BX initially proposed to implement the new Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionality on November 21, 2016.9 However, following testing, BX has decided to delay the implementation of these new functionalities to provide additional time for systems testing. The new functionality shall be implemented no later than March 31, 2017. BX will announce the new implementation date by an Equity Trader Alert, which shall be issued prior to the implementation date.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. The purpose of this proposal is to inform the SEC and market participants of the new implementation date for the Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging, and Trade Now functionalities. The functionalities themselves were previously proposed in rule filings that were submitted to the SEC, and this proposal does not change the substance of those functionalities.12 BX is delaying the implementation date of these functionalities to provide for further systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the purpose of this proposal is to extend the implementation date for Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionalities so that BX may perform additional systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BX-2017-008 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

Section 19(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80a-19(b)) authorizes the Commission to regulate registered investment company (“fund”) distributions of long-term capital gains made more frequently than once every twelve months. Accordingly, rule 19b-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.19b-1) regulates the frequency of fund distributions of capital gains. Rule 19b-1(c) states that the rule does not apply to a unit investment trust (“UIT”) if it is engaged exclusively in the business of investing in certain eligible securities (generally, fixed-income securities), provided that: (i) The capital gains distribution falls within one of five categories specified in the rule 1 and (ii) the distribution is accompanied by a report to the unitholder that clearly describes the distribution as a capital gains distribution (the “notice requirement”).2 Rule 19b-1(e) permits a fund to apply to the Commission for permission to distribute long-term capital gains that would otherwise be prohibited by the rule if the fund did not foresee the circumstances that created the need for the distribution. The application must set forth the pertinent facts and explain the circumstances that justify the distribution.3 An application that meets those requirements is deemed to be granted unless the Commission denies the request within 15 days after the Commission receives the application.

Commission staff estimates that five funds will file an application under rule 19b-1(e) each year.4 The staff understands that if a fund files an application it generally uses outside counsel to prepare the application. The cost burden of using outside counsel is discussed below. The staff estimates that, on average, a fund's investment adviser would spend approximately 4 hours to review an application, including 3.5 hours by an assistant general counsel at a cost of $433 per hour and 0.5 hours by an administrative assistant at a cost of $74 per hour, and the fund's board of directors would spend an additional 1 hour at a cost of $4,465 per hour, for a total of 5 hours.5 Thus, the staff estimates that the annual hour burden of the collection of information imposed by rule 19b-1(e) would be approximately five hours per fund, at a cost of $6017.50.6 Because the staff estimates that, each year, five funds will file an application pursuant to rule 19b-1(e), the total burden for the information collection is 40 hours at a cost of $30,087.50.7

Commission staff estimates that there is no hour burden associated with complying with the collection of information component of rule 19b-1(c).

As noted above, Commission staff understands that funds that file an application under rule 19b-1(e) generally use outside counsel to prepare the application.8 The staff estimates that, on average, outside counsel spends 10 hours preparing a rule 19b-1(e) application, including eight hours by an associate and two hours by a partner. Outside counsel billing arrangements and rates vary based on numerous factors, but the staff has estimated the average cost of outside counsel as $400 per hour, based on information received from funds, intermediaries, and their counsel. The staff therefore estimates that the average cost of outside counsel preparation of the rule 19b-1(e) exemptive application is $4,000.9 Because the staff estimates that, each year, five funds will file an application pursuant to rule 19b-1(e), the total annual cost burden imposed by the exemptive application requirements of rule 19b-1(e) is estimated to be $20,000.10

The Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 2,579 UITs 11 that may rely on rule 19b-1(c) to make capital gains distributions. The staff estimates that, on average, these UITs rely on rule 19b-1(c) once a year to make a capital gains distribution.12 In most cases, the trustee of the UIT is responsible for preparing and sending the notices that must accompany a capital gains distribution under rule 19b-1(c)(2). These notices require limited preparation, the cost of which accounts for only a small, indiscrete portion of the comprehensive fee charged by the trustee for its services to the UIT. The staff believes that as a matter of good business practice, and for tax preparation reasons, UITs would collect and distribute the capital gains information required to be sent to unitholders under rule 19b-1(c) even in the absence of the rule. The staff estimates that the cost of preparing a notice for a capital gains distribution under rule 19b-1(c)(2) is approximately $50. There is no separate cost to mail the notices because they are mailed with the capital gains distribution. Thus, the staff estimates that the capital gains distribution notice requirement imposes an annual cost on UITs of approximately $128,950.13 The staff therefore estimates that the total cost imposed by rule 19b-1 is $160,950 ($128,950 plus $20,000 (total cost associated with rule 19b-1(e)) equals $148,950).

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

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

On October 27, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change amending Rule 104 to delete subsection (g)(i)(A)(III), which prohibits Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) from establishing, during the last ten minutes of trading before the close, a new high (low) price for the day on the Exchange in a security in which the DMM has a long (short) position (“Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.3

On December, 20, 1016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.4 The Commission has received no comments on the proposal. This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.

Currently, under Exchange Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III), a DMM with a long (short) position in a security cannot, during the last ten minutes before the close of trading, make a purchase (sale) in that security that results in a new high (low) price on the Exchange for that day.5 The Exchange proposes to remove this prohibition from its rulebook.

The Exchange asserts that, in light of developments in the equity markets and in the Exchange's own trading model, Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) has lost its original purpose and utility.6 Specifically, the Exchange asserts that, in today's electronic marketplace, where DMMs have replaced specialists, and control of pricing decisions has moved away from market participants on the Exchange trading floor, the purpose behind the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition is no longer necessary, and eliminating the prohibition would not eliminate other existing safeguards that prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close.7

The Exchange argues that the rationale behind preventing specialists from setting the price of a security on the Exchange in the final ten minutes of trading was to prevent specialists from inappropriately influencing the price of a security at the close to advantage a specialist's proprietary position.8 In today's fragmented marketplace, according to the Exchange, a new high or low price for a security on the Exchange in the last ten minutes of trading does not have a significant effect on the market price for that security, because a new high or low price on the Exchange may not be the new high or low for a security—prices may be higher or lower in away markets, where the majority of intra-day trading in NYSE-listed securities takes place—and because any advantage to a DMM by establishing a new high or low on the Exchange during the last ten minutes can rapidly evaporate following trades in away markets. Because DMMs do not have the ability to direct or influence trading, or to control intra-day prices, that specialists had before the implementation of Regulation NMS, the Exchange asserts, the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition is anachronistic.9

The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 10 to determine whether the proposal should be disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposal, as discussed below. Institution of disapproval proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described in greater detail below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide additional comment on the proposal.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act, the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In addition, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act prohibits the rules of an exchange from being designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

The Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition was originally approved as part of the NYSE pilot program called the “New Market Model.12 As the Commission stated when approving the NYSE proposal to conduct the New Market Model pilot, “[w]e carefully review trading rule proposals that seek to offer special advantages to market makers. Although an exchange may reward such participants for the benefits they provide to the exchange's market, such rewards must not be disproportionate to the services provided.” 13 In 2015, when the Commission approved the NYSE's proposal to make the New Market Model permanent,14 the Commission noted the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition,15 among many aspects of the New Market Model, and reiterated that the pilot program had been conducted, among other reasons, to seek “further evidence that the benefits proposed for DMMs are not disproportionate to their obligations.” 16

Under the proposal, the Exchange seeks to eliminate the Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibition—an obligation imposed on DMMs—thereby altering the existing set of obligations and benefits of DMM status. Accordingly, the Commission seeks public comment on whether the Exchange's proposal would maintain an appropriate balance between the benefits and obligations of being a DMM on the Exchange and whether the obligations of DMMs under remaining Exchange rules are reasonably designed to prevent DMMs from inappropriately influencing or manipulating the close in light of DMMs' special responsibility for closing auctions under Exchange rules.

The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above, as well as any others they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is inconsistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulation thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.17

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be disapproved by March 15, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by March 29, 2017.

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-NYSE-2016-71 on the subject line.

• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 3, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

The Exchange proposes to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality.

There is no rule text for this proposed rule change.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

Nasdaq is filing this proposal to extend the implementation date of its functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging, and its Trade-Now functionality. The functionality relating to Post-Only Orders and Orders with Midpoint Pegging was approved by the SEC on November 10, 2016,3 and the Trade-Now functionality was submitted on an immediately effective basis on November 8, 2016.4

Under the new Post-Only functionality, the behavior of Post-Only orders would be altered when the adjusted price of such orders lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, if the adjusted price of the Post-Only Order would lock or cross a non-displayed price on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only order would be posted in the same manner as a Price to Comply Order. However, the Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book (as measured against the original limit price of the Order) equals or exceeds $0.01 per share.5

Additionally, if the Post-Only Order would not lock or cross a Protected Quotation but would lock or cross a Non-Displayed Order on the Exchange's Book, the Post-Only Order would be posted, ranked, and displayed at its limit price. The Post-Only Order would execute if (i) it is priced below $1.00 and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals or exceeds the sum of fees charged for such execution and the value of any rebate that would be provided if the Order posted to the Nasdaq Book and subsequently provided liquidity, or (ii) it is priced at $1.00 or more and the value of price improvement associated with executing against an Order on the Nasdaq Book equals or exceeds $0.01 per share.6

Nasdaq also proposed to change its Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order, so that, if the NBBO is crossed, any existing Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would be cancelled and any new Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order would be rejected. Similarly, if the Inside Bid and Inside Offer are crossed, any existing Order with Midpoint Pegging would be rejected and any new Order with Midpoint Pegging would be cancelled.7

Under Nasdaq's Trade-Now functionality, participants could enter an instruction to have a locked resting buy (sell) order execute against the locking sell (buy) order. Nasdaq proposed to offer the functionality on its OUCH, RASH, FLITE and FIX protocols. Depending on the protocol used by the participant to access the Nasdaq system, the participant could either specify that the order execute against locking interest automatically, or the participant would be required to send a Trade Now instruction to the Exchange once the order has become locked. Nasdaq proposed to offer the Trade Now instruction for all orders that may be sent to the continuous Nasdaq book, and did not offer the instruction for orders that do not execute on the continuous book.8

Nasdaq initially proposed to implement the new Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionality on November 21, 2016.9 However, following testing, Nasdaq has decided to delay the implementation of these new functionalities to provide additional time for systems testing. The new functionality shall be implemented no later than March 31, 2017. Nasdaq will announce the new implementation date by an Equity Trader Alert, which shall be issued prior to the implementation date.

The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. The purpose of this proposal is to inform the SEC and market participants of the new implementation date for the Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging, and Trade Now functionalities. The functionalities themselves were previously proposed in rule filings that were submitted to the SEC, and this proposal does not change the substance of those functionalities.12 Nasdaq is delaying the implementation date of these functionalities to provide for further systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.

The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As noted above, the purpose of this proposal is to extend the implementation date for Post-Only, Midpoint Pegging and Trade-Now functionalities so that Nasdaq may perform additional systems testing prior to implementing these functionalities.

No written comments were either solicited or received.

Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-22 (17 CFR 240.17a-22) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Rule 17a-22 requires all registered clearing agencies to file with the Commission three copies of all materials they issue or make generally available to their participants or other entities with whom they have a significant relationship. The filings with the Commission must be made within ten days after the materials are issued or made generally available. When the Commission is not the clearing agency's appropriate regulatory agency, the clearing agency must file one copy of the material with its appropriate regulatory agency.

The Commission is responsible for overseeing clearing agencies and uses the information filed pursuant to Rule 17a-22 to determine whether a clearing agency is implementing procedural or policy changes. The information filed aides the Commission in determining whether such changes are consistent with the purposes of Section 17A of the Exchange Act. Also, the Commission uses the information to determine whether a clearing agency has changed its rules without reporting the actual or prospective change to the Commission as required under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.

The respondents to Rule 17a-22 are registered clearing agencies. The frequency of filings made by clearing agencies pursuant to Rule 17a-22 varies but on average there are approximately 200 filings per year per active clearing agency. There are seven active registered clearing agencies. The Commission staff estimates that each response requires approximately .25 hours (fifteen minutes), which represents the time it takes for a staff person at the clearing agency to properly identify a document subject to the rule, print and makes copies, and mail that document to the Commission. Thus, the total annual burden for all active clearing agencies is 350 hours (7 clearing agencies multiplied by 200 filings per clearing agency multiplied by .25 hours) and a total of 50 hours (1400 responses multiplied by .25 hours, divided by 7 active clearing agencies) per year are expended by each respondent to comply with the rule.

Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

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

Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to: [email protected].

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) authorizes the Commission to adopt rules that protect funds and their security holders from overreaching by affiliated persons when the fund and the affiliated person participate in any joint enterprise or other joint arrangement or profit-sharing plan. Rule 17d-1 under the Act (17 CFR 270.17d-1) prohibits funds and their affiliated persons from participating in a joint enterprise, unless an application regarding the transaction has been filed with and approved by the Commission. Paragraph (d)(3) of the rule provides an exemption from this requirement for any loan or advance of credit to, or acquisition of securities or other property of, a small business concern, or any agreement to do any of the foregoing (“investments”) made by a small business investment company (“SBIC”) and an affiliated bank, provided that reports about the investments are made on forms the Commission may prescribe. Rule 17d-2 (17 CFR 270.17d-2) designates Form N-17D-1 (17 CFR 274.00) (“form”) as the form for reports required by rule 17d-1.

SBICs and their affiliated banks use form N-17D-1 to report any contemporaneous investments in a small business concern. The form provides shareholders and persons seeking to make an informed decision about investing in an SBIC an opportunity to learn about transactions of the SBIC that have the potential for self-dealing and other forms of overreaching by affiliated persons at the expense of shareholders.

Form N-17D-1 requires SBICs and their affiliated banks to report identifying information about the small business concern and the affiliated bank. The report must include, among other things, the SBIC's and affiliated bank's outstanding investments in the small business concern, the use of the proceeds of the investments made during the reporting period, any changes in the nature and amount of the affiliated bank's investment, the name of any affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank (or any affiliated person of the affiliated person of the SBIC or the affiliated bank) who has any interest in the transactions, the basis of the affiliation, the nature of the interest, and the consideration the affiliated person has received or will receive.

Up to two SBICs may file the form in any year.1 The Commission estimates the burden of filling out the form is approximately one hour per response and would likely be completed by an accountant or other professional. Based on past filings, the Commission estimates that no more than one SBIC is likely to use the form each year. Most of the information requested on the form should be readily available to the SBIC or the affiliated bank in records kept in the ordinary course of business, or with respect to the SBIC, pursuant to the recordkeeping requirements under the Act. Commission staff estimates that it should take approximately one hour for an accountant or other professional to complete the form.2 The estimated total annual burden of filling out the form is 1 hour, at an estimated total annual cost of $201.3 The Commission will not keep responses on Form N-17D-1 confidential.

The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (“Paperwork Reduction Act”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Rule 17f-7 (17 CFR 270.17f-7) permits a fund under certain conditions to maintain its foreign assets with an eligible securities depository, which has to meet minimum standards for a depository. The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether the depository complies with those requirements based on information provided by the fund's primary custodian (a bank that acts as global custodian). The depository custody arrangement also must meet certain conditions. The fund or its adviser must receive from the primary custodian (or its agent) an initial risk analysis of the depository arrangements, and the fund's contract with its primary custodian must state that the custodian will monitor risks and promptly notify the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks. The primary custodian and other custodians also are required to agree to exercise at least reasonable care, prudence, and diligence.

The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-7 are intended to provide workable standards that protect funds from the risks of using foreign securities depositories while assigning appropriate responsibilities to the fund's primary custodian and investment adviser based on their capabilities. The requirement that the foreign securities depository meet specified minimum standards is intended to ensure that the depository is subject to basic safeguards deemed appropriate for all depositories. The requirement that the fund or its adviser must receive from the primary custodian (or its agent) an initial risk analysis of the depository arrangements, and that the fund's contract with its primary custodian must state that the custodian will monitor risks and promptly notify the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks, is intended to provide essential information about custody risks to the fund's investment adviser as necessary for it to approve the continued use of the depository. The requirement that the primary custodian agree to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances that its services and the information it provides will meet an appropriate standard of care.

The staff estimates that each of approximately 992 investment advisers 1 will make an average of 8 responses annually under the rule to address depository compliance with minimum requirements, any indemnification or insurance arrangements, and reviews of risk analyses or notifications. The staff estimates each response will take 6 hours, requiring a total of approximately 48 hours for each adviser.2 Thus the total annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule is approximately 47,616 hours.3 The staff further estimates that during each year, each of approximately 15 global custodians will make an average of 4 responses to analyze custody risks and provide notice of any material changes to custody risk under the rule. The staff estimates that each response will take 260 hours, requiring approximately 1,040 hours annually per global custodian.4 Thus the total annual burden associated with these requirements is approximately 15,600 hours.5 The staff estimates that the total annual hour burden associated with all collection of information requirements of the rule is therefore 63,216 hours.6

The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets in foreign custodians. The information provided under rule 17f-7 will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the exisiting collection of information provided for in Rule 101 of Regulation M (17 CFR 242.101), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

Rule 101—Activities by Distribution Participants—prohibits distribution participants from purchasing activities at specified times during a distribution of securities. Persons otherwise covered by this rule may seek to use several applicable exceptions such as a calculation of the average daily trading volume of the securities in distribution, the maintenance of policies regarding information barriers between their affiliates, and the maintenance of a written policy regarding general compliance with Regulation M for de minimus transactions.

There are approximately 1550 respondents per year that require an aggregate total of 30,218 hours to comply with this rule. Each respondent makes an estimated 1 annual response. Each response takes on average approximately 19.495 hours to complete. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 30,218 burden hours. The total estimated internal labor compliance cost for the respondents is approximately $1,964,170.00, resulting in an estimated internal labor cost of compliance for each respondent per response of approximately $1267.21 (i.e., $1,964,170.00/1550 responses).

Written comments are invited on: (a) 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; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

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

Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected].

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

The title of the collection of information is: “Exemption for Certain Multi-State Investment Advisers (Rule 203A-2(d)).” Its currently approved OMB control number is 3235-0689. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Pursuant to section 203A of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Act”) (15 U.S.C. 80b-3a), an investment adviser that is regulated or required to be regulated as an investment adviser in the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business is prohibited from registering with the Commission unless that adviser has at least $25 million in assets under management or advises a Commission-registered investment company. Section 203A also prohibits from Commission registration an adviser that: (i) Has assets under management between $25 million and $100 million; (ii) is required to be registered as an investment adviser with the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business; and (iii) if registered, would be subject to examination as an adviser by that state (a “mid-sized adviser”). A mid-sized adviser that otherwise would be prohibited may register with the Commission if it would be required to register with 15 or more states. Similarly, Rule 203A-2(d) under the Act (17 CFR 275.203a-2(d)) provides that the prohibition on registration with the Commission does not apply to an investment adviser that is required to register in 15 or more states. An investment adviser relying on this exemption also must: (i) Include a representation on Schedule D of Form ADV that the investment adviser has concluded that it must register as an investment adviser with the required number of states; (ii) undertake to withdraw from registration with the Commission if the adviser indicates on an annual updating amendment to Form ADV that it would be required by the laws of fewer than 15 states to register as an investment adviser with the state; and (iii) maintain in an easily accessible place a record of the states in which the investment adviser has determined it would, but for the exemption, be required to register for a period of not less than five years from the filing of a Form ADV relying on the rule.

Respondents to this collection of information are investment advisers required to register in 15 or more states absent the exemption that rely on rule 203A-2(d) to register with the Commission. The information collected under rule 203A-2(d) permits the Commission's examination staff to determine an adviser's eligibility for registration with the Commission under this exemptive rule and is also necessary for the Commission staff to use in its examination and oversight program. This collection of information is codified at 17 CFR 275.203a-2(d) and is mandatory to qualify for and maintain Commission registration eligibility under rule 203A-2(d). Responses to the recordkeeping requirements under rule 203A-2(d) in the context of the Commission's examination and oversight program are generally kept confidential.

The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the collection of information requirements under the rule is 142. These advisers will incur an average one-time initial burden of approximately 8 hours, and an average ongoing burden of approximately 8 hours per year, to keep records sufficient to demonstrate that they meet the 15-state threshold. These estimates are based on an estimate that each year an investment adviser will spend approximately 0.5 hours creating a record of its determination whether it must register as an investment adviser with each of the 15 states required to rely on the exemption, and approximately 0.5 hours to maintain these records. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 203A-2(d) results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment advisers of a total of 1,136 hours. Estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to: [email protected].