Federal Register Vol. 82, No.36,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 36 (February 24, 2017)

Page Range11501-11787
FR Document

82_FR_36
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 11515 - United States Rail Service Issues-Performance Data ReportingPDF
82 FR 11574 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 11574 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11689 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 11692 - Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing: J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., Schneider National Carriers, Inc., Werner Enterprises, Inc., Knight Transportation, Inc., Dupre Logistics, Inc. and Maveric Transportation, LLC Application for ExemptionPDF
82 FR 11658 - Concrete and Masonry Construction Standard; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) RequirementsPDF
82 FR 11564 - Notice of Availability of Records of Decision for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment To Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CaliforniaPDF
82 FR 11587 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 11586 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 11594 - South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11593 - Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11574 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 11594 - Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11591 - Hoopa Valley Tribe; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11592 - Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 11591 - Georgia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 11693 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA) Inviting Applications for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Funding Round of the Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA Program)PDF
82 FR 11562 - Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 11561 - The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of ThingsPDF
82 FR 11592 - Georgia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
82 FR 11593 - California; Emergency and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11592 - California; Major Disaster and Related DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11509 - New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug ApplicationPDF
82 FR 11506 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's AddressPDF
82 FR 11585 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
82 FR 11586 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
82 FR 11586 - Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Eastern Ventura County, California, To Be Included in the Special Exposure CohortPDF
82 FR 11531 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee To Vote on 2016 School Equity Report and To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the StatePDF
82 FR 11575 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 11575 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 11561 - Procurement List; AdditionPDF
82 FR 11653 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Access to Employee Exposure and Medical RecordsPDF
82 FR 11656 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Aerial Lifts StandardPDF
82 FR 11659 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education; MeetingPDF
82 FR 11655 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Occupational Safety and Health Administration Conflict of Interest and DisclosurePDF
82 FR 11654 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Student DataPDF
82 FR 11505 - Temporary General License: Extension of ValidityPDF
82 FR 11689 - Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 11589 - Accreditation and Approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 11588 - Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 11588 - Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial GaugerPDF
82 FR 11648 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; ATF Adjunct Instructor Data Form-ATF Form 6140.3PDF
82 FR 11558 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); MeetingPDF
82 FR 11652 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Collectors of FirearmsPDF
82 FR 11648 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government Entities ATF F 10 (5320.10)PDF
82 FR 11653 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection; National Firearms Act (NFA)-Special Occupational Taxes (SOT), (ATF Form 5630.5R, ATF Form 5630.5RC, and ATF Form 5630.7)PDF
82 FR 11649 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Supplemental Information on Water Quality Considerations (ATF F 5000.30)PDF
82 FR 11651 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Special Agent Medical Preplacement (ATF F 2300.10)PDF
82 FR 11650 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Application for Alternate Means of Identification of Firearm(s) (Marking Variance) (ATF Form 3311.4)PDF
82 FR 11650 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Inventories, Licensed Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and PermitteesPDF
82 FR 11574 - Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation-Cap AdjustmentPDF
82 FR 11690 - Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy Notice of Cancelation of Previously Scheduled Open MeetingPDF
82 FR 11690 - Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation-Notice of Closed and Open Meetings for 2017PDF
82 FR 11577 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
82 FR 11587 - Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 11590 - Accreditation and Approval of Amspec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
82 FR 11540 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Thorny Skate as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)PDF
82 FR 11562 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
82 FR 11558 - New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 11560 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 11662 - Information Collection Request: Submission for OMB ReviewPDF
82 FR 11533 - Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 11531 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Poland: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
82 FR 11536 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
82 FR 11637 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CTPDF
82 FR 11637 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, ARPDF
82 FR 11606 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, ARPDF
82 FR 11617 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11633 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
82 FR 11538 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
82 FR 11657 - Data Users Advisory Committee; Request for NominationsPDF
82 FR 11578 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
82 FR 11575 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
82 FR 11577 - ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, Announces the Following MeetingPDF
82 FR 11576 - Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) SubcommitteePDF
82 FR 11534 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
82 FR 11605 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, NDPDF
82 FR 11640 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: American Museum of Natural History, New York, NYPDF
82 FR 11645 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MAPDF
82 FR 11628 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11644 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Dana Adobe Nipomo Amigos, Nipomo, CAPDF
82 FR 11641 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, INPDF
82 FR 11624 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, Monterey, CAPDF
82 FR 11608 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11620 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11633 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11629 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11632 - Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, and Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 11618 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TNPDF
82 FR 11642 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Washington, DCPDF
82 FR 11638 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE, and State Archeological Research Center, Rapid City, SDPDF
82 FR 11626 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OHPDF
82 FR 11619 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AKPDF
82 FR 11631 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
82 FR 11627 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, ARPDF
82 FR 11643 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WAPDF
82 FR 11604 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0009PDF
82 FR 11690 - Public Comments and Hearing Regarding Request To Reinstate Action Taken in Connection With the European Union's Measures Concerning Meat and Meat ProductsPDF
82 FR 11660 - Emergency Planning For Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power Production and Utilization FacilitiesPDF
82 FR 11661 - Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle FacilitiesPDF
82 FR 11564 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program-150% LimitationPDF
82 FR 11583 - Health Insurance MarketplaceSMPDF
82 FR 11559 - Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish FisheryPDF
82 FR 11510 - New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 11509 - New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 11558 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 3D Nation Requirements and Benefits Elevation Data Study QuestionnairePDF
82 FR 11576 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 11569 - Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 11567 - Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 11570 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549D & FERC-733); Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 11570 - Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory OrderPDF
82 FR 11566 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 11565 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 11596 - Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Management AuthorityPDF
82 FR 11599 - Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Migratory Birds and EaglesPDF
82 FR 11601 - Proposed Information Collection; National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and ReportsPDF
82 FR 11598 - Proposed Information Collection; Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard PartsPDF
82 FR 11603 - Proposed Information Collection; Migratory Bird SurveysPDF
82 FR 11513 - VNT1 Protein in Potato; Exemption From the Requirement of a TolerancePDF
82 FR 11517 - Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle TennesseePDF
82 FR 11663 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 11517 - Proposed Further Delay of Effective Date for Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5PDF
82 FR 11666 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend PIXL pricingPDF
82 FR 11670 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Clarify Its Fees Relating to the MIAX Express Network Interconnect (“MENI”)PDF
82 FR 11676 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the MIAX PEARL Fee SchedulePDF
82 FR 11673 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Related to a Change to the Trading Symbol for P.M.-Settled Options on the Standard & Poor's 500 IndexPDF
82 FR 11674 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 6.62, 6.73 and Make a Conforming Change to Rule 6.47APDF
82 FR 11523 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers (SCANR) StudyPDF
82 FR 11526 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Evaluation of the Direct Certification With Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price (DCM-F/RP) Meals DemonstrationsPDF
82 FR 11501 - Federal Reserve Bank Capital StockPDF
82 FR 11568 - John A. Dodson; Village of Highland Falls High-Point Utility, LDC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 11572 - Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Brazoria Interconnector Gas Pipeline LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 11568 - Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the B-System ProjectPDF
82 FR 11569 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
82 FR 11573 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 11573 - 4C Acquisition, LLC; Notice of Request for WaiverPDF
82 FR 11647 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 11580 - Medicare Program; Public Meetings in Calendar Year 2017 for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Coding and Payment DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 11579 - Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality for Continued Approval of Its Hospital Accreditation ProgramPDF
82 FR 11505 - Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-235 and V-293 in the Vicinity of Cedar City, UtahPDF
82 FR 11595 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting ReportsPDF
82 FR 11691 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Action on Interstate Highway 35 East (I-35E) From U.S. Highway 67 (US 67) to I-30 and US 67 From I-20 to I-35E, Dallas County, TexasPDF
82 FR 11516 - Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation PlanPDF
82 FR 11706 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
82 FR 11563 - Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory PanelPDF
82 FR 11502 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) HelicoptersPDF
82 FR 11748 - Procedural Rules and RegulationsPDF

Issue

82 36 Friday, February 24, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Alternate Means of Identification of Firearm(s) (Marking Variance), 11650 2017-03652 Application for Registration of Firearms Acquired by Certain Government Entities, 11648-11649 2017-03656 ATF Adjunct Instructor Data Form, 11648 2017-03659 Inventories, Licensed Explosives Importers, Manufacturers, Dealers, and Permittees, 11650-11651 2017-03651 National Firearms Act—Special Occupational Taxes, 11653 2017-03655 Records of Acquisition and Disposition, Collectors of Firearms, 11652 2017-03657 Special Agent Medical Preplacement, 11651-11652 2017-03653 Supplemental Information on Water Quality Considerations, 11649-11650 2017-03654 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11576-11577 2017-03593 Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Initial Review, 11577-11579 2017-03629 2017-03647 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel, 11575-11576 2017-03628 ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee, 11577-11578 2017-03627 State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Subcommittee, 11576 2017-03626 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application from the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality for Continued Approval of its Hospital Accreditation Program, 11579-11580 2017-03556 Medicare Program: Public Meetings in Calendar Year 2017 for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Coding and Payment Determinations, 11580-11583 2017-03557 Meetings: Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program; Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education, 11583-11585 2017-03598 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Idaho Advisory Committee, 11531 2017-03673 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 11561-11562 2017-03643 2017-03670 Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Availability: Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA Program) Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Round, 11693-11704 2017-03684 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Meetings: Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel, 11562-11563 2017-03683
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program—150 Percent Limitation, 11564-11565 2017-03599 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Tolerance Exemptions: VNT1 Protein in Potato, 11513-11515 2017-03580 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Idaho; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, 11517 2017-03577 Tennessee; Non-Interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle Tennessee, 11517-11522 2017-03579 Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, 11516 2017-03478 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc., 11574 2017-03689 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters, 11502-11504 2017-02856 Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-235 and V-293 in the Vicinity of Cedar City, UT, 11505 2017-03544 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11574 2017-03782 2017-03801 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Emergency and Related Determinations: California, 11593 2017-03680 Major Disaster Declarations: Georgia; Amendment No. 3, 11592 2017-03681 Georgia; Amendment No. 4, 11591 2017-03685 Hoopa Valley Tribe, 11591 2017-03687 Louisiana, 11593-11594 2017-03690 Oklahoma, 11594 2017-03688 South Dakota, 11594-11595 2017-03691 Tennessee; Amendment No. 1, 11592-11593 2017-03686 Major Disasters and Related Determinations: California, 11592 2017-03679 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11570-11572 2017-03590 Applications: Southern Natural Gas Co., LLC, 11567-11568 2017-03591 Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Brazoria Interconnector Gas Pipeline LLC, 11572-11573 2017-03566 Combined Filings, 11565-11567, 11569, 11573 2017-03563 2017-03564 2017-03587 2017-03588 Environmental Reviews: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; B-System Project, 11568 2017-03565 License Transfer; Applications: John A. Dodson; Village of Highland Falls High-Point Utility, LDC, 11568-11569 2017-03567 Petitions for Declaratory Orders: Consumers Energy Co., 11570 2017-03589 Preliminary Permit Applications: Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 11569-11570 2017-03592 Requests for Waivers: 4C Acquisition, LLC, 11573 2017-03562 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Federal Agency Actions: Interstate Highway 35 East from U.S. Highway 67 to I-30 and US 67 from I-20 to I-35E, Dallas County, TX, 11691-11692 2017-03489 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation—Cap Adjustment, 11574-11575 2017-03650 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Controlled Substances and Alcohol Use and Testing; Exemption Applications: J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.; Schneider National Carriers, Inc.; Werner Enterprises, Inc.; Knight Transportation, Inc.; Dupre Logistics, Inc.; Maveric Transportation, LLC, 11692-11693 2017-03720 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock, 11501-11502 2017-03568 NOTICES Change in Bank Controls: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 11575 2017-03672 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 11575 2017-03671 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority, 11596-11598 2017-03586 Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles, 11599-11601 2017-03585 Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts, 11598-11599 2017-03583 Migratory Bird Surveys, 11603-11604 2017-03582 National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 11601-11603 2017-03584 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES New Animal Drugs: Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's Address, 11506-11509 2017-03677 Use in Animal Feed; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications, 11510-11513 2017-03596 Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application, 11509 2017-03678 Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications, 11509-11510 2017-03595 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of the Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals Demonstrations, 11526-11530 2017-03569 Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers Study, 11523-11526 2017-03570 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Decisions to Evaluate Petitions to Designate Classes of Employees for Inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort: Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Ventura County, CA, 11586 2017-03674 Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, 11585-11586 2017-03675 2017-03676
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports, 11595-11596 2017-03522 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 11706-11745 2017-03373 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Temporary General Licenses: Extension of Validity, 11505-11506 2017-03664 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 11533-11534 2017-03639 Determinations of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, 11538-11540 2017-03631 Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico, 11534-11536 2017-03625 Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Poland, 11531-11533 2017-03638 Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea, 11536-11538 2017-03637 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith, DN 3198, 11647-11648 2017-03561 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

Labor Department Labor Department See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records, 11653-11654 2017-03669 Aerial Lifts Standard, 11656-11657 2017-03668 Occupational Safety and Health Administration Conflict of Interest and Disclosure, 11655-11656 2017-03666 Student Data, 11654-11655 2017-03665
Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Data Users Advisory Committee, 11657-11658 2017-03630 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11604-11605 2017-03603 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: Ad Hoc Task Force on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education, 11659-11660 2017-03667 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 11587 2017-03693 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 11586 2017-03692 National Labor National Labor Relations Board RULES Procedural Rules and Regulations, 11748-11787 2017-01288 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 3D Nation Requirements and Benefits Elevation Data Study Questionnaire, 11558-11559 2017-03594 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Thorny Skate as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act, 11540-11558 2017-03644 Fisheries off West Coast Sites: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Fishing Capacity Reduction Program, Sub-Loan Repayment, 11559-11560 2017-03597 Meetings: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 11558 2017-03658 New England Fishery Management Council, 11558, 11560-11561 2017-03641 2017-03642 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 11608-11618, 11620-11624, 11629-11631, 11633-11637 2017-03615 2017-03616 2017-03617 2017-03633 2017-03614 Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; Correction, 11632-11633 2017-03613 Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR, 11606-11607, 11637-11638 2017-03634 2017-03635 Dana Adobe Nipomo Amigos, Nipomo, CA, 11644-11645 2017-03620 Department of Anthropology at Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 11641-11642 2017-03619 Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH, 11626-11627 2017-03609 Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 11637 2017-03636 Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Andover, MA, 11645-11647 2017-03622 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 11631-11633 2017-03607 2017-03632 U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE, and State Archeological Research Center, Rapid City, SD, 11638-11640 2017-03610 U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, 11642-11643 2017-03611 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK, 11619-11620 2017-03608 United States Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, Monterey, CA, 11624-11626 2017-03618 Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 11618-11619 2017-03612 Repatriation of Cultural Items: American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, 11640-11641 2017-03623 Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, 11627-11629 2017-03606 2017-03621 State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, 11605-11606 2017-03624 Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 11643-11644 2017-03605 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things, 11561 2017-03682 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, CA, 11564 2017-03694 Meetings: Ocean Research Advisory Panel, 11563 2017-03263 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Draft Regulatory Guides: Emergency Planning For Research and Test Reactors and Other Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities, 11660-11661 2017-03601 Physical Inventories and Material Balances at Fuel Cycle Facilities, 11661-11662 2017-03600 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Concrete and Masonry Construction Standard, 11658-11659 2017-03710 Peace Peace Corps NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11662-11663 2017-03640 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11663-11666 2017-03578 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 11689 2017-03732 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 11673-11674 2017-03573 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 11670-11673 2017-03575 MIAX PEARL, LLC, 11676-11689 2017-03574 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 11666-11670 2017-03576 NYSE Arca, Inc., 11674-11676 2017-03572 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 11689-11690 2017-03663 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation, 11690 2017-03648 Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Cancellation, 11690 2017-03649 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board RULES United States Rail Service Issues; Performance Data Reporting, 11515 C1--2017--02492 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Meetings: Regarding Request to Reinstate Action Taken in Connection with the European Union's Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products, 11690-11691 2017-03602 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Accreditations and Approvals: Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 11588-11589 2017-03661 Chem Coast, Inc., 11589-11590 2017-03662 Intertek USA, Inc., 11588 2017-03660 Commercial Gaugers and Laboratories; Approvals: AmSpec Services, LLC, 11590-11591 2017-03645 Intertek USA, Inc., 11587-11588 2017-03646 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Housing and Urban Development Department, 11706-11745 2017-03373 Part III National Labor Relations Board, 11748-11787 2017-01288 Reader Aids

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

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

82 36 Friday, February 24, 2017 Rules and Regulations FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Part 209 [Regulation I; Docket No. R-1560] RIN 7100-AE 68 Federal Reserve Bank Capital Stock AGENCY:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Board of Governors (Board) is publishing a final rule that applies an inflation adjustment to the $10 billion total consolidated asset threshold in Regulation I, which implements the provision of the “Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act” (FAST Act) that sets the dividend rate that member banks with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets earn on their Federal Reserve Bank (Reserve Bank) stock. The FAST Act requires that the Board annually adjust the $10 billion total consolidated asset threshold to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Based on the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index as of September 29, 2016, the total consolidated asset threshold will be $10,122,000,000 through December 31, 2017.

DATES:

This final rule is effective March 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Evan Winerman, Counsel (202/872-7578), Legal Division; or Kimberly Zaikov, Financial Project Leader (202/452-2256), Reserve Bank Operations and Payments Systems Division. For users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact (202) 263-4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Regulation I governs the issuance and cancellation of capital stock by the Reserve Banks. Under section 5 of the Federal Reserve Act 1 and Regulation I,2 a member bank must subscribe to capital stock of the Reserve Bank of its district in an amount equal to six percent of the member bank's capital and surplus. The member bank must pay for one-half of this subscription on the date that the Reserve Bank approves its application for capital stock, while the remaining half of the subscription shall be subject to call by the Board.3

1 12 U.S.C. 287.

2 12 CFR 209.4(a).

3 12 U.S.C. 287 and 12 CFR 209.4(c)(2).

Prior to January 1, 2016, all member banks were entitled to a six percent dividend on their paid-in capital stock. As of January 1, 2016, the FAST Act 4 amended section 7(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Act 5 to provide that stockholders with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets shall receive a dividend on paid-in capital stock equal to the lesser of six percent and “the rate equal to the high yield of the 10-year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend,” while stockholders with $10 billion or less in total consolidated assets shall continue to receive a six percent dividend. The FAST Act also provides that the Board must adjust the $10 billion threshold for total consolidated assets annually to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

4 Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015). See https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr22/BILLS-114hr22enr.pdf/.

5 12 U.S.C. 289(a)(1).

On November 23, 2016, the Board published a final rule (FAST Act Final Rule) in the Federal Register that amended Regulation I to implement section 32203 of the FAST Act.6 Regulation I now includes multiple references in §§ 209.2, 209.3, and 209.4 to banks with total consolidated assets of either “$10,000,000,000 or more” or “less than $10,000,000,000.” 7 As required by the FAST Act, Regulation I provides that all references to the $10 billion total consolidated asset threshold shall be adjusted annually to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index.8 The preamble to the FAST Act Final Rule noted that “[t]he Board expects to make this adjustment using the final second quarter estimate of the Gross Domestic Product Price Index for each year, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.” 9

6 81 FR 84415 (Nov. 23, 2016). The final rule adopted, without change, an interim final rule that the Board published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9082).

7 Regulation I defines “total consolidated assets” as “the total assets on the stockholder's balance sheet as reported by the stockholder on its Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report) as of the most recent December 31, except in the case of a new member or the surviving stockholder after a merger `total consolidated assets' means (until the next December 31 Call Report becomes available) the total consolidated assets of the new member or the surviving stockholder at the time of its application for capital stock.” 12 CFR 209.1(d)(3).

8 12 CFR 209.4(f).

9 81 FR at 84417.

II. Adjustment

As of the effective date, the total consolidated asset threshold in Regulation I shall be $10,122,000,000. This is based on the final second quarter 2016 Gross Domestic Product Price Index estimate published by Bureau of Economic Analysis (111.268), which is 1.22% higher than the final second quarter 2015 Gross Domestic Product Price Index estimate (109.922).

III. Administrative Law Matters Administrative Procedure Act

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Board finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.10 The amendment in this document is technical and applies the method previously set forth in the FAST Act Final Rule.11 For these reasons, the Board has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. Therefore, the amendments are adopted in final form.

10 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

11See 12 CFR 209.4(f).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.12 As noted previously, the Board has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

12 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,13 the Board has reviewed this final rule. No collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act are contained in the final rule.

13 44 U.S.C. 3506; 5 CFR 1320.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 209

Banks and banking, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

Authority and Issuance

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Board amends Regulation I, 12 CFR part 209, as follows:

PART 209—ISSUE AND CANCELLATION OF FEDERAL RESERVE BANK CAPITAL STOCK (REGULATION I) 1. The authority citation for part 209 continues to read as follows: Authority:

12 U.S.C. 12 U.S.C. 222, 248, 282, 286-288, 289, 321, 323, 327-328, and 466.

2. In part 209, remove all references to “$10,000,000,000” and add in their place “$10,122,000,000”, wherever they appear. By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 17, 2017. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-03568 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-AD; Amendment 39-18792; AD 2017-03-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH) Helicopters AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-05-06 for Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH (ECD) (now Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH) Model EC135 and MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters to correct an error in the compliance time. AD 2014-05-06 required inspecting the flight-control bearings and installing bushings and washers. This AD requires the same actions. These actions are intended to prevent an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective March 31, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 14, 2014 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0674.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to remove AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014) and add a new AD. AD 2014-05-06 required inspecting the flight control bearings repetitively, replacing any loose bearing with an airworthy flight control bearing, and installing bushings and washers. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16603). The NPRM proposed to retain all of the required actions and correct an error in the compliance time. AD 2014-05-06 should have required installing the bushings and washers on Model EC135 helicopters within the next 100 hours time-in-service or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first. However, we omitted the word “first” from that sentence, which changes the meaning of the required compliance time.

AD 2014-05-06 was prompted by the discovery of loose flight control bearings because of incorrect installation. This condition could result in the affected control lever shifting, contacting the helicopter structure. The actions in AD 2014-05-06 were intended to prevent this unsafe condition, which could reduce control of the helicopter.

Also since we issued AD 2014-05-06, ECD changed its name to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters). This AD reflects that change and updates the contact information to obtain service documentation.

Comments

After our NPRM (80 FR 16603, March 30, 2015) was published, we received comments from one commenter.

Request

Airbus Helicopters first requested revising the compliance times for the repetitive inspections to match that in its current service information. For the Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, Airbus Helicopters requested increasing the 800 hour interval to 1000 hours with an additional 10% margin. For MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, Airbus Helicopters requested increasing the 600 hour interval to 800 hours with an additional 10% margin.

We disagree. Airbus Helicopters did not provide any technical justification to support this request. The final rule has not been changed as a result of this comment.

Airbus Helicopters also requested that if any bearing is loose, we require replacing the lever or rebonding the affected bearing in accordance with its maintenance instructions.

We agree with the comment but disagree that a change to the AD is necessary. If there is a loose bearing, the AD requires replacing it with an airworthy part. If a bearing can be re-bonded in a manner acceptable to the FAA, then it would be an airworthy part.

FAA's Determination

These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA, reviewed the relevant information, considered the comments received, and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed with the changes described previously. These changes are consistent with the intent of the proposals in the NPRM (80 FR 16603, March 30, 2015), and will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

Differences between this AD and the EASA AD are:

• The EASA AD is applicable to the EC 635 helicopter, whereas this AD is not because the EC 635 helicopter is not type certificated in the U.S.

• The EASA AD requires an initial inspection within 50 flight hours or one month, whichever occurs first after May 31, 2008, and a modification within the next 12 months. This AD requires the modification within 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, and no inspection until after the modification has been accomplished.

• The EASA AD specifies repetitive inspection intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 12 months, plus a 10% percent margin, whichever occurs first, for Model EC135 helicopters and 600 hours TIS or 12 months, plus a 10% percent margin, whichever occurs first, for the Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters. This AD requires repetitive inspection intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months, whichever occurs first, for Model EC135 helicopters and 600 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first, for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters.

• The EASA AD applies to all Model EC135 and Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, while this AD applies to certain serial-numbered Model EC135 and Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, as recommended by the appropriate ECD ASB.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010 for Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, and ASB EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009 for Model EC135 helicopters. These ASBs specify:

• Within the next 50 flight hours (FHs), inspecting the affected bearings and, if necessary, rebonding any affected bearings or replacing the lever assembly.

• Within 12 months, retrofitting bushings and washers on the levers to prevent movement of the bearings.

• After the retrofit, repeating the inspection every 800 FHs or 36 months for the Model EC135 helicopters, whichever comes first, and 600 FHs or 24 months, whichever comes first, for the Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 175 Model EC135 and 112 Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters of U.S. Registry and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these estimates, we expect the following costs:

• For EC135 helicopters, it takes about 32 work-hours to perform the modification. Parts cost about $312. The total cost for the modification is about $3,032 per helicopter and $530,600 for the U.S. operator fleet. The repetitive inspections require 6.5 work-hours for a cost of about $553 per helicopter and about $96,775 for the fleet per inspection cycle.

• For MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters, it takes about 32 work-hours to perform the modification. Parts cost about $396. The total cost for the modification is $3,116 per helicopter and $348,992 for the U.S. operator fleet. The cost for the repetitive inspections thereafter is about $85 per helicopter and $9,520 for the fleet per inspection cycle.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014), and adding the following new AD: 2017-03-01 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Amendment 39-18792; Docket No. FAA-2015-0674; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-019-AD. (a) Applicability

This AD applies to the following helicopters, certificated in any category:

(1) Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters, serial number (S/N) 0005 through 00829, with a tail rotor control lever, part number (P/N) L672M2802205 or L672M1012212; cyclic control lever, P/N L671M1005250; collective control lever assembly, P/N L671M2020108; or collective control plate, P/N L671M5040207; installed; and

(2) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters,S/N 9004 through 9310, with a tail rotor control lever assembly, P/N B672M1007101 or B672M1807101; tail rotor control lever, P/N B672M1002202 or L672M2802205; or lateral control lever assembly, P/N B670M1008101, installed.

(b) Unsafe Condition

This AD defines the unsafe condition as incorrectly installed flight control bearings. This condition could cause the affected control lever to shift and contact the helicopter structure, resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2014-05-06, Amendment 39-17779 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

(d) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective March 31, 2017.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Required Actions

(1) For Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ helicopters:

(i) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) guidance units and the cyclic shaft by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

(A) Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever of the LH guidance unit as depicted in Detail A of Figure 5 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009 (EC135 ASB).

(B) For helicopters without a yaw brake, remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail B of Figure 5 of EC135 ASB.=

(C) Remove and disassemble the cyclic shaft and install a washer, P/N L671M1005260, between the bearing block and the lever as depicted in Detail C of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

(D) Remove the collective control rod from the bellcrank and install a washer, P/N L221M1042208, on each side of the collective control rod and bellcrank as depicted in Detail D of Figure 6 of EC135 ASB.

(E) At intervals not to exceed 800 hours TIS or 36 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the LH guidance unit, RH guidance unit, cyclic control, upper guidance unit, and linear voltage differential transducer plate for play. If any bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

(2) For Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 helicopters:

(i) Within the next 100 hours TIS or at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, modify the LH and RH guidance units and the lateral control lever by installing bushings and washers to prevent shifting of the bearings in the axial direction as follows:

(A) Remove and disassemble the RH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail B of Figure 4 of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010 (BK117 ASB). Remove and disassemble the LH guidance unit and install a bushing, P/N L672M1012260, between the lever and the bracket as depicted in Detail C of Figure 4 of BK117 ASB.

(B) Remove the lateral control lever and install new bushings in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C(9)(a) through 3.C(9)(g), of BK 117 ASB.

(C) Identify the modified lever assembly by writing “MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010” on the lever with permanent marking pen and protect with a single layer of lacquer (CM 421or equivalent).

(D) Apply corrosion preventive paste (CM 518 or equivalent) on the shank of the screws and install airworthy parts as depicted in Figure 5 of BK117 ASB.

(E) At intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 24 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the bearings in the RH guidance unit, LH guidance unit, and lateral control guidance unit for play. If any bearing is loose, replace the affected bearing with an airworthy bearing.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

(h) Additional Information

The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2010-0058, dated March 30, 2010. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-0674.

(i) Subject

Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6710, Main Rotor Control.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 13196, March 10, 2014).

(i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin EC135-67A-019, Revision 3, dated December 16, 2009.

(ii) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin MBB BK117 C-2-67A-010, Revision 3, dated February 8, 2010.

(4) For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, Inc., 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub.

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

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

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 25, 2017. Lance T. Gant, Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-02856 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9265; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANM-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-235 and V-293 in the Vicinity of Cedar City, Utah AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY:

This action corrects the preamble to a final rule published in the Federal Register of December 6, 2016, amending two Air Traffic Service Routes (ATS) in the vicinity of Cedar City, Utah. The three letter identifier for the renamed Enoch VOR/DME navigation aid is changed from (ENK) to (EHK).

DATES:

The effective date of this final rule remains 0901 UTC, March 2, 2017. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

In the final rule FR Doc. 2016-29143, beginning on page 87802, in the issue of December 6, 2016, make the following correction, in “The Rule” section: On page 87802, column 3, line 61, remove “(ENK)” and add in its place “(EHK)”.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 8, 2017. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2017-03544 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160106014-7155-06] RIN 0694-AG82 Temporary General License: Extension of Validity AGENCY:

Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License. The March 24 final rule created a temporary general license that restored, for a specified time period, the licensing requirements and policies under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) as of March 7, 2016, to two entities (ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun) that were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until March 29, 2017. In order to implement this decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the expiration date of February 27, 2017, and to substitute the date of March 29, 2017. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

DATES:

This rule is effective February 24, 2017 through March 29, 2017. The expiration date of the final rule published on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633) is extended until March 29, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a temporary general license that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to that which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016.

On June 28, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 41799), which extended the validity of the temporary general license until August 30, 2016. On August 19, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 55372), which extended, for a second time, the validity of the Temporary General License until November 28, 2016. On November 18, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 81663), which extended, for a third time, the validity of the Temporary General License until February 27, 2017. Details regarding the scope of the listing are at 81 FR 12004 (Mar. 8, 2016), (“Additions to the Entity List”). Details regarding the Temporary General License can be found in the March 24 final rule and in Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—Temporary General License.

BIS issued the March 24 final rule, and the June 28, August 19, and November 18 extension of validity final rules, in connection with a request to remove or modify the listings. The March 24 final rule, and the June 28, August 19, and November 18 final rules, specified that the temporary general license was renewable if the U.S. Government determined, in its sole discretion, that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun were performing their undertakings to the U.S. Government in a timely manner and otherwise cooperating with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing.

At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until March 29, 2017. In order to implement this U.S. Government decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the date of February 27, 2017, and substitute the date of March 29, 2017. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

Export Administration Act

Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

Rulemaking Requirements

1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to or be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the national security and foreign policy objectives of this rule would be harmed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

List of Subject in 15 CFR Part 744

Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016); Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016); Notice of September 15, 2016, 81 FR 64343 (September 19, 2016); Notice of November 8, 2016, 81 FR 79379 (November 10, 2016).

Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—[AMENDED] 2. In Supplement No. 7 to part 744, remove “February 27, 2017” and add in its place “March 29, 2017”. Dated: February 21, 2017. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-03664 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application; Change of Sponsor; Change of Sponsor's Address AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during September and October 2016. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect changes of sponsorship of several applications and a change of a sponsor's address.

DATES:

This rule is effective February 24, 2017, except for the amendment to 21 CFR 524.1465, which is effective March 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Approval Actions

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during September and October 2016, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book) at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm.

Table 1—Original and Supplemental NADAs and ANADAs Approved During September and October 2016 Approval date File No. Sponsor Product name Species Effect of the action/indications for use Public
  • documents
  • October 26, 2016 141-465 Elanco US Inc, 2500 Innovation Way, Greenfield, IN 46140 INTEPRITY (avilamycin) and COBAN (monensin) Type C medicated feeds Chickens Original approval for the prevention of mortality caused by necrotic enteritis associated with Clostridium perfringens in broiler chickens; and as an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria necatrix, E. tenella, E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. mivati, and E. maxima FOI Summary. September 8, 2016 200-592 Putney, Inc., One Monument Sq., Suite 400, Portland, ME 04101 Amoxicillin Trihydrate and Clavulanate Potassium Tablets Dogs Original approval of a generic copy of NADA 055-099 FOI Summary.
    II. Change of Sponsorship

    Sogeval S. A., 200 Avenue de Mayenne, 53000 Laval, France has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to Ceva Sante Animale, 10 Avenue de la Ballastière, 33500 Libourne, France:

    File No. Product name 21 CFR section 099-667 IMPOSIL (iron heptomer) Injection 522.1182 110-399 GLEPTOSIL (gleptoferron) Injection 522.1055

    Following these changes of sponsorship, Sogeval S. A. is no longer the sponsor of an approved NADA. Accordingly, the firm's name, address, and drug labeler code are being removed from § 510.600(c) (21 CFR 510.600(c)).

    In addition, Zoetis, Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following applications to Kinetic Technologies, LLC, 961 Beasley St., Suite 270, Lexington, KY 40509:

    File No. Product name 21 CFR section 006-417 RECOVR (tripelennamine hydrochloride) Injection 522.2615 032-319 FUROX (furazolidone) Aerosol Powder 524.1005 038-838 ROBAXIN-V (methocarbamol) Injection 522.1380 108-687 PET DERM III (dexamethasone) Tablets 520.540c 111-369 Dexamethasone Sterile Solution 522.540

    Following these changes of sponsorship, Kinetic Technologies, LLC is now the sponsor of an approved NADA. Accordingly, the firm's name, address, and drug labeler code are being added to § 510.600(c).

    III. Withdrawals of Approval

    In addition, Putney, Inc., One Monument Square, Suite 400, Portland, ME 04101 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANADA 200-524 for Mupirocin Ointment 2% because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that approval of ANADA 200-524, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective March 6, 2017. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect this voluntary withdrawal of approval.

    IV. Technical Amendments

    Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1401 Duff Dr., Suite 600, Fort Collins, CO 80524 has informed FDA that it has changed its address to 1230 W. Ash St., Suite D, Windsor, CO 80550. In addition, FDA has noticed that a sponsor name in § 510.600 does not reflect the particular punctuation used in this sponsor's applications and other correspondence. At this time, we are amending the list of sponsors of approved applications in § 510.600(c) to reflect this change of sponsor address and sponsor's punctuation.

    This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Parts 520, 522, and 524

    Animal drugs.

    21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510, 520, 522, 524, and 558 are amended as follows:

    PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

    § 510.600 [Amended]
    2. Revise § 510.600 as follows: a. In the table in paragraph (c)(1): i. In the entry for “Elanco US, Inc.”, remove “Elanco US, Inc.” and in its place add “Elanco US Inc.”; ii. Alphabetically add an entry for “Kinetic Technologies, LLC”; iii. Remove the entry for “Sogeval S. A.”; and iv. Revise the entry for “Wildlife Laboratories, Inc.” b. In the table in paragraph (c)(2): i. Numerically add an entry for “051031”; ii. Revise the entry for “053923” iii. In the entry for “058198”, remove “Elanco US, Inc.” and in its place add “Elanco US Inc.”; and iv. Remove the entry for “059120”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Firm name and address Drug labeler
  • code
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * Kinetic Technologies, LLC, 961 Beasley St., Suite 270, Lexington, KY 40509 051031 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1230 W. Ash St., Suite D, Windsor, CO 80550 053923 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (2) * * *

    Drug labeler
  • code
  • Firm name and address
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 051031 Kinetic Technologies, LLC, 961 Beasley St., Suite 270, Lexington, KY 40509. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 053923 Wildlife Laboratories, Inc., 1230 W. Ash St., Suite D, Windsor, CO 80550. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    § 520.88g [Amended]
    4. In § 520.88g, in paragraph (b), remove “No. 054771” and in its place add “Nos. 026637 and 054771”.
    § 520.540c [Amended]
    5. In § 520.540c, in paragraph (b), remove “054771” and in its place add “051031”. PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 6. The authority citation for part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    § 522.540 [Amended]
    7. In § 522.540, in paragraph (d)(2)(i), remove “054771” and in its place add “051031”.
    § 522.1055 [Amended]
    8. In § 522.1055, in paragraph (b), remove “059120” and in its place add “013744”.
    § 522.1182 [Amended]
    9. In § 522.1182, in paragraph (b)(3), remove “059120” and in its place add “013744”.
    § 522.1380 [Amended]
    10. In § 522.1380, in paragraph (b), remove “054771” and in its place add “051031”.
    § 522.2615 [Amended]
    11. In § 522.2615, in paragraph (b), remove “054771” and in its place add “051031”. PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 12. The authority citation for part 524 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    § 524.1005 [Amended]
    13. In § 524.1005, in paragraph (b)(1), remove “054771” and in its place add “051031”.
    § 524.1465 [Amended]
    14. Effective March 6, 2017, in § 524.1465, in paragraph (b), remove “026637”. PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 15. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

    16. In § 558.68, revise paragraph (e)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 558.68 Avilamycin.

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Avilamycin in
  • grams/ton
  • Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (ii) 13.6 to 40.9 Monensin 90 to 110; as provided by No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter Broiler chickens: For the prevention of mortality caused by necrotic enteritis associated with Clostridium perfringens in broiler chickens; and as an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria necatrix, E. tenella, E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. mivati, and E. maxima Feed as the sole ration for 21 consecutive days. To assure responsible antimicrobial drug use in broiler chickens, treatment administration must begin on or before 10 days of age. See § 558.355(d) of this chapter for additional required labeling 058198
    Dated: February 21, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03677 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 524 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA) at the sponsor's request because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

    DATES:

    Withdrawal of approval is effective March 6, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Putney, Inc., One Monument Square, Suite 400, Portland, ME 04101 has requested that FDA withdraw approval of ANADA 200-524 for Mupirocin Ointment 2% because the product is no longer manufactured or marketed.

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of ANADA 200-524, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective March 6, 2017.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of this application.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03678 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of 18 new animal drug applications (NADAs) and 2 abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs). These withdrawals of approval of NADAs and ANADAs for antimicrobial drugs of importance to human medicine that are administered to food-producing animals in medicated feed are being made because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed. These actions are consistent with the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine's initiative for the Judicious Use of Antimicrobials.

    DATES:

    Withdrawal of approval is effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FDA is withdrawing approval of 18 NADAs and 2 ANADAs. These applications were identified as being affected by guidance for industry (GFI) #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions With GFI #209,” December 2013 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf). Their withdrawal of approval is consistent with the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine's initiative for the Judicious Use of Antimicrobials.

    Approval of the following applications for new animal drugs administered in medicated feed is being voluntarily withdrawn at the sponsors' requests because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed:

    File No. Product name Sponsor 044-820 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/AMPROL PLUS (amprolium and ethopabate) Zoetis Inc.
  • 333 Portage St.
  • Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (Zoetis Inc.).
  • 044-972 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/COYDEN (clopidol) Zoetis Inc. 047-261 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/DECCOX (decoquinate) Zoetis Inc. 047-262 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/DECCOX (decoquinate) Zoetis Inc. 048-954 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/ZOAMIX (zoalene) Zoetis Inc. 091-513 STAFAC (virginiamycin) Type A Medicated Article Phibro Animal Health Corp., GlenPointe Centre East, 3d floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., Suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666 (Phibro Animal Health Corp.). 092-482 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/COBAN (monensin) Zoetis Inc. 093-106 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/ROBENZ (robenidine) Zoetis Inc. 101-689 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Zoetis Inc. 122-481 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/COBAN (monensin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 122-608 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 122-822 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AMPROL PLUS (amprolium and ethopabate) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 137-537 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/BIO-COX (salinomycin) Zoetis Inc. 138-792 TYLAN (tylosin)/RUMENSIN (monensin)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc. 138-828 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/BIO-COX (salinomycin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 138-904 TYLAN (tylosin)/BOVATEC (lasalocid)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc. 141-110 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/COBAN (monensin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 141-150 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 200-092 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/SACOX (salinomycin) Huvepharma EOOD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str., 1113 Sophia, Bulgaria (Huvepharma EOOD). 200-093 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/SACOX (salinomycin) Huvepharma EOOD.

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADAs 044-820, 044-972, 047-261, 047-262, 048-954, 091-513, 092-482, 093-106, 101-689, 122-481, 122-608, 122-822, 137-537, 138-792, 138-828, 138-904, 141-110, 141-150, 200-092, and 200-093, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective February 24, 2017.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of these applications.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03595 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feed; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of eight supplemental new animal drug applications (NADAs). The effect of these supplemental applications will be to change the marketing status from over-the-counter (OTC) use to use by veterinary feed directive (VFD) for these antimicrobial drugs of importance to human medicine, administered to food-producing animals in medicated feed. Where applicable, FDA is also withdrawing approval of those parts of the NADAs that pertain to use of these antimicrobial drugs for production indications. These actions are being taken at the sponsors' requests because these particular medicated feeds will no longer be manufactured or marketed. These applications were submitted in voluntary compliance with the goals of FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine's (CVM's) Judicious Use Initiative. In addition, the animal drug regulations are being amended to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of certain entire NADAs and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) that were affected by this initiative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Supplemental Approval of Revised Labeling and Withdrawal of Approval of Portions of NADAs Pertaining to Production Indications

    FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of eight supplemental NADAs for revised labeling reflecting a change in marketing status from OTC use to use by VFD for antimicrobial drugs of importance to human medicine administered to food-producing animals in medicated feed. Where applicable, FDA is also withdrawing approval of those parts of the NADAs that pertain to use of these antimicrobial drugs for production indications. These actions are being taken at the sponsors' requests because these particular medicated feeds will no longer be manufactured or marketed.

    These applications were identified as being affected by guidance for industry (GFI) #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209”, December 2013 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM299624.pdf). Their change from OTC to VFD marketing status is consistent with FDA CVM's initiative for the Judicious Use of Antimicrobials.

    The affected applications for Type A medicated articles for which supplemental applications with revised labeling were approved are as follows:

    File No. Animal drug product Sponsor 091-467 STAFAC 500 (virginiamycin) Type A Medicated Article Phibro Animal Health Corp., GlenPointe Centre East, 3d Floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., Suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666 (Phibro Animal Health Corp.). 140-998 V-MAX (virginiamycin) Type A Medicated Article Phibro Animal Health Corp.

    The affected applications for manufacturing combination drug medicated feeds follow:

    File No. Animal drug product Sponsor 046-718 TERRAMYCIN (oxytetracycline)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (Zoetis Inc.). 046-719 TERRAMYCIN (oxytetracycline)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc. 140-579 TERRAMYCIN (oxytetracycline)/BOVATEC (lasalocid) Zoetis Inc. 141-114 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVIAX (semduramicin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 141-289 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVIAX II (semduramicin) (biomass) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 141-430 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/COBAN (monensin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. II. Withdrawals of Approval

    At the sponsors' requests, approval of applications is being withdrawn for medicated feeds containing antimicrobial drugs of importance to human medicine administered to food-producing animals because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed. The applications being withdrawn are as follows:

    File No. Product name Sponsor 044-820 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/AMPROL PLUS (amprolium and ethopabate) Zoetis Inc., 333 Portage St., Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (Zoetis Inc.). 044-972 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/COYDEN (clopidol) Zoetis Inc. 047-261 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/DECCOX (decoquinate) Zoetis Inc. 047-262 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/DECCOX (decoquinate) Zoetis Inc. 048-954 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/ZOAMIX (zoalene) Zoetis Inc. 091-513 STAFAC (virginiamycin) Type A Medicated Article Phibro Animal Health Corp., GlenPointe Centre East, 3d Floor, 300 Frank W. Burr Blvd., Suite 21, Teaneck, NJ 07666 (Phibro Animal Health Corp.). 092-482 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/COBAN (monensin) Zoetis Inc. 093-106 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/ROBENZ (robenidine) Zoetis Inc. 101-689 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Zoetis Inc. 122-481 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/COBAN (monensin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 122-608 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 122-822 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AMPROL PLUS (amprolium and ethopabate) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 137-537 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/BIO-COX (salinomycin) Zoetis Inc. 138-792 TYLAN (tylosin)/RUMENSIN (monensin)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc. 138-828 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/BIO-COX (salinomycin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 138-904 TYLAN (tylosin)/BOVATEC (lasalocid)/MGA (melengestrol acetate) Zoetis Inc. 141-110 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/COBAN (monensin) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 141-150 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/AVATEC (lasalocid) Phibro Animal Health Corp. 200-092 STAFAC (virginiamycin)/SACOX (salinomycin) Huvepharma EOOD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str., 1113 Sophia, Bulgaria (Huvepharma EOOD). 200-093 LINCOMIX (lincomycin)/SACOX (salinomycin) Huvepharma EOOD.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that approval of NADAs 044-820, 044-972, 047-261, 047-262, 048-954, 091-513, 092-482, 093-106, 101-689, 122-481, 122-608, 122-822, 137-537, 138-792, 138-828, 138-904, 141-110, and 141-150, and ANADAs 200-092 and 200-093, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective February 24, 2017. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these voluntary withdrawals of approval.

    A similar rule published in the Federal Register of December 27, 2016 (81 FR 94991), amended the approved conditions of use in 21 CFR part 558 to reflect approval of an additional 106 supplemental NADAs and supplemental ANADAs for the manufacture of medicated feeds for administration of antimicrobial drugs to food-producing animals and the voluntary withdrawal of approval of 11 NADAs and 4 ANADAs.

    This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows:

    PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

    2. In § 558.450, redesignate paragraph (e)(4)(iii) as paragraph (e)(4)(v) and add paragraphs (e)(4)(iii) and (iv) to read as follows:
    § 558.450 Oxytetracycline.

    (e) * * *

    (4) Cattle

    Oxytetracycline amount Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor *         *         *         *         *         *         * (iii) 75 mg/head/day Lasalocid 25 to 30 Heifers fed in confinement for slaughter (over 400 lb): For reduction of incidence of liver abscesses; and for increased rate of weight gain and improved feed efficiency Feed continuously to provide 250 to 360 mg lasalocid and 75 mg of oxytetracycline per head per day. Lasalocid as provided by No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter 054771 (iv) 75 mg/head/day Melengestrol acetate, 0.25 to 2.0 Heifers fed in confinement for slaughter (over 400 lb): For reduction of incidence of liver abscesses; and for increased rate of weight gain, improved feed efficiency, and suppression of estrus (heat) Feed continuously to provide 0.25 to 0.5 mg of melengestrol acetate and 75 mg of oxytetracycline per head per day. Melengestrol as provided by No. 054771 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter 054771 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    3. In § 558.635, revise paragraphs (a) and (e) and add paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
    § 558.635 Virginiamycin.

    (a) Specifications. Type A medicated articles containing 10, 20, 50, or 227 grams virginiamycin per pound.

    (d) Special considerations. (1) Federal law restricts medicated feed containing this veterinary feed directive (VFD) drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian. See § 558.6 for additional requirements.

    (2) The expiration date of VFDs for virginiamycin medicated feeds must not exceed 6 months from the date of issuance. VFDs for virginiamycin shall not be refilled.

    (e) Conditions of use—(1) Chickens

    Virginiamycin grams/ton Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor (i) 20 Broiler chickens: For prevention of necrotic enteritis caused by Clostridium spp. susceptible to virginiamycin Not for use in layers 066104 (ii)-(vi) [Reserved] (vii) 20 Monensin, 90 to 110 Broiler chickens: For prevention of necrotic enteritis caused by Clostridium spp. susceptible to virginiamycin; and as an aid in the prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria necatrix, E. tenella, E. acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, and E. mivati Feed continuously as the sole ration. Do not feed to laying chickens. Monensin as provided by No. 058198 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter 066104 (viii) [Reserved] (ix) 20 Semduramicin, 22.7 Broiler chickens: For prevention of necrotic enteritis caused by Clostridium spp. susceptible to virginiamycin; for the prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, E mivati/mitis, E. necatrix, and E. tenella Feed continuously as the sole ration. Do not feed to laying hens. Semduramicin as provided by No. 066104 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter 066104 (x) 20 Semduramicin (biomass), 22.7 Broiler chickens: For prevention of necrotic enteritis caused by Clostridium spp. susceptible to virginiamycin; for the prevention of coccidiosis caused by Eimeria acervulina, E. brunetti, E. maxima, E mivati/mitis, E. necatrix, and E. tenella Feed continuously as the sole ration. Withdraw 1 day before slaughter. Do not feed to laying hens. Semduramicin as provided by No. 066104 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter 066104

    (2) Swine

    Virginiamycin grams/ton Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor (i) 25 Growing-finishing swine: As an aid in control of dysentery in swine up to 120 pounds in animals or on premises with a history of swine dysentery but where symptoms have not yet occurred 066104 (ii) 50 or 100 Growing-finishing swine: For treatment and control of swine dysentery in swine up to 120 pounds Feed 100 grams per ton for 2 weeks, 50 grams per ton thereafter 066104 (iii) 100 Growing-finishing swine: For treatment of swine dysentery in nonbreeding swine over 120 pounds Feed for 2 weeks 066104

    (3) Cattle

    Virginiamycin grams/ton Combination in grams/ton Indications for use Limitations Sponsor (i) 13.5 to 16.0 Cattle fed in confinement for slaughter: For reduction of incidence of liver abscesses Feed continuously as the sole ration to provide 85 to 240 milligrams per head per day. Not for use in animals intended for breeding 066104 (ii) [Reserved]
    Dated: February 17, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03596 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 174 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457; FRL-9957-97] VNT1 Protein in Potato; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of VNT1 protein in potato when used as a plant-incorporated protectant. J.R. Simplot Company submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting a permanent exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of VNT1 protein in potato under FFDCA.

    DATES:

    This regulation is effective February 24, 2017. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before April 25, 2017 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert McNally, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

    B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

    C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before April 25, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0457, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Background

    In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24047) (FRL-9944-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition (PP 5F8425) by J.R. Simplot Co., 5369 W. Irving St., Boise, ID 83706. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of VNT1 protein in potato. That document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner J.R. Simplot Company, which is available in the docket via http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

    EPA previously established a temporary exemption from tolerance for VNT1 protein in potato (40 CFR 174.534; 80 FR 9387) in conjunction with an Experimental Use Permit (8917-EUP-2) in 2015. This temporary exemption was subsequently amended (extended) on December 17, 2015 and expires on April 1, 2017.

    III. Final Rule A. EPA's Safety Determination

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the exemption is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), in establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C), which require EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance or tolerance exemption, and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . . .” Additionally, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that EPA consider “available information concerning the cumulative effects of [a particular pesticide's] . . . residues and other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

    EPA evaluated the available toxicity and exposure data on VNT1 protein and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability, as well as the relationship of this information to human risk. A full explanation of the data upon which EPA relied and its risk assessment based on that data can be found within the December 6, 2016, document entitled “Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) Considerations for VNT1 protein.” This document, as well as other relevant information, is available in the docket for this action as described under ADDRESSES. Based upon its evaluation, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from aggregate exposure to residues of VNT1 protein. Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of VNT1 protein in potato when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in accordance with the terms of registration.

    B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    EPA has determined that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation. Nonetheless, an analytical method was provided by J.R. Simplot for the detection of VNT1 protein in potato. This method utilizes a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to detect the presence of the Rpi-vntl gene in pSIM1678 transformed plants (pSIM1678 is the transformation vector used by the registrant to incorporate the Rpi-vntl gene into potato varieties). There are numerous homologs of Rpi-vnt1 present in potato and tomato varieties and other wild Solanum species that may result in non-specific amplification when using primers designed to amplify Rpi-vnt1. To distinguish between plants that naturally contain homologous sequences and those transformed with pSIM1678, a second method amplifies a unique junction between the Rpi-vnt1 terminator and the AGP promoter present in the pSIM1678 T-DNA. This second method is intended to confirm the presence or absence of pSIM1678 if there are false positive detection of Rpi-vnt1 homologs.

    C. Revisions to Requested Tolerance Exemption

    The current temporary tolerance exemption for VNT1 protein in potato (40 CFR 174.534) approved by EPA on December 17, 2015, will be changed to a permanent tolerance exemption.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to EPA. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this action, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not apply.

    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes. As a result, this action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, EPA has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, EPA has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

    This action does not involve any technical standards that would require EPA's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

    V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 18, 2017. Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

    PART 174—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7. U.S.C. 136-136y; 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

    2. Revise § 174.534 to read as follows:
    § 174.534 VNT1 protein; exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of VNT1 protein in potato are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when the Rpi-vnt1 gene that express the VNT1 protein is used as a plant-incorporated protectant in potato.

    [FR Doc. 2017-03580 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Part 1250 [Docket No. EP 724 (Sub-No. 4)] United States Rail Service Issues—Performance Data Reporting Correction

    In rule document 2017-02492, appearing on pages 9529-9529, in the issue of Tuesday, February 7, 2017, make the following correction:

    On page 9529, in the third column, the signature block should read as follows:

    Decided: January 27, 2017.

    By the Board, Acting Chairman Begeman, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Elliott.

    Brendetta S. Jones, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. C1-2017-02492 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D
    82 36 Friday, February 24, 2017 Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611; FRL-9959-42-Region 6] Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Texas; Regional Haze and Interstate Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    In the January 4, 2017 Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested comments by March 6, 2017 on a proposed rule pertaining to Clean Air Act requirements for regional haze and interstate visibility transport. This proposal would promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the Clean Air Act requirement for eligible electric generating units (EGUs) in Texas to install and operate the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART). This proposal would also disapprove a portion of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) that evaluated BART for Particulate Matter (PM) at EGUs. In addition, this proposal reconsiders earlier disapprovals of portions of several SIP revisions submitted to satisfy the requirement to address interstate visibility transport for six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), newly proposing that they be disapproved and that the proposed EGU BART FIP would satisfy any FIP obligation for interstate visibility transport that would follow from those disapprovals. EPA is extending the public comment period for this proposal until May 5, 2017.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before May 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0611, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to [email protected] Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact Joe Kordzi, 214-665-7186, [email protected] For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).

    The Texas regional haze SIP is available online at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/bart/haze_sip.html. It is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7186; fax number 214-665-7263; email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On January 4, 2017, we published in the Federal Register a proposed rule pertaining to regional haze and interstate visibility transport (82 FR 912). Specifically, we proposed to (1) partially disapprove a portion of the Texas SIP pertaining to the PM BART requirement for EGUs, (2) address the BART requirement for Texas EGUs through a FIP including source-specific BART limits on 29 EGUs for PM and sulfur dioxide (SO2) and a finding that NOx BART for EGUs in Texas is met by participation in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), (3) reconsider and re-propose disapproval of portions of several SIP revisions submitted to satisfy the requirement to address interstate visibility transport for six NAAQS, and (4) determine that the proposed BART FIP emission limits would meet the interstate visibility transport requirements for these NAAQS, satisfying any FIP obligations that would follow from disapprovals of the SIP revisions on requirements to address interstate visibility transport. We received several requests for an extension of the comment period and, in response, have decided to allow an additional 60 days. We are extending the comment period to May 5, 2017.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control technology.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 9, 2017. Wren Stenger, Multimedia Division Director, Region 6.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03478 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067; FRL-9959-63-Region 10] Proposed Further Delay of Effective Date for Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area Published by the Environmental Protection Agency on January 4, 2017 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; further delay of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,” and the Federal Register document published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) on January 26, 2017, the EPA is proposing to further delay the effective date for Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area until April 20, 2017.

    DATES:

    Written comments on the proposed rule must be received by March 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067, online at www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at www.regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hunt, Air Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101; telephone number: (206) 553-0256; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On January 26, 2017, the EPA published a document in the Federal Register entitled “Delay of Effective Date for 30 Final Regulations Published by the Environmental Protection Agency Between October 28, 2016 and January 17, 2017” (82 FR 8499). In that document, the EPA delayed the effective date of Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area to March 21, 2017, as requested in the memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” (January 20 Memo). That memo directed the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to temporarily postpone for 60 days from the date of the January 20 Memo the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the Federal Register but had not yet taken effect.

    The January 20 Memo also states: “Where appropriate and as permitted by applicable law, [agencies] should consider proposing for notice and comment a rule to delay the effective date for regulations beyond that 60-day period.” In this document, the EPA is proposing to further delay the effective date for Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area until April 20, 2017. The EPA is proposing this additional delay to give Agency officials the opportunity to decide whether they would like to conduct a substantive review of this rule. If Agency officials decide to conduct a substantive review of Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, the EPA will take appropriate actions to conduct such a review, including, but not limited to, issuing a document in the Federal Register addressing any further delays of the effective date of Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area or extensions of compliances dates in the rule. If Agency officials decide not to conduct a substantive review of Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area, it will become effective on April 20, 2017.

    The EPA solicits comment only on its proposal to further delay the effective date of Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Attainment Plan for the Idaho Portion of the Logan, Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. The EPA is not soliciting and will not consider comments on any other aspect of the rule itself.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Michelle Pirzadeh, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03577 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615; FRL-9959-08-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN: Non-interference Demonstration for Federal Low-Reid Vapor Pressure Requirement in Middle Tennessee AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, submitted through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on November 21, 2016. This SIP revision was submitted in support of the State's request that EPA change the federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) requirements for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties (hereinafter referred to as the “Middle Tennessee Area” or “Area”). Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP submittal revises its maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates that relaxing the federal RVP requirements in this Area would not interfere with the Area's ability to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). Specifically, Tennessee's SIP revision concludes that relaxing the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year in the Area would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or with any other CAA requirement. EPA is proposing to determine that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision is consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. What is being proposed today?

    This rulemaking proposes to approve Tennessee's noninterference demonstration, submitted on November 21, 2016, in support of the State's request that EPA relax the federal RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year (i.e., during high ozone season) in the Area. The State is requesting the removal of the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement. As part of that request, Tennessee has evaluated whether removal of this requirement would interfere with air quality in the Area. To make this demonstration of noninterference, Tennessee completed a technical analysis, including modeling, to estimate the change in emissions that would result from a switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel. EPA has reviewed this technical analysis and is proposing to find that Tennessee's demonstration supports the conclusion that the use of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi throughout the Middle Tennessee Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    EPA is proposing to approve changes to the existing CAA section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan, including updated modeling, that show that the Middle Tennessee Area can continue to maintain the ozone standards without the use of gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi during the high ozone season. More specifically, EPA is proposing to approve that portion of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision which includes a technical demonstration that changing the federal RVP requirements in this Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.1

    1 A separate rulemaking is required for relaxation of the current requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Area. This action proposes EPA's evaluation of the approvability of Tennessee's noninterference demonstration pursuant to section 110(l). The decision regarding removal of Federal RVP requirements pursuant to section 211(h) in the Area includes other considerations evaluated at the discretion of the Administrator. As such, the determination regarding whether to remove the Area from those areas subject to the section 211(h) requirements is made through a separate rulemaking action.

    This preamble is hereinafter organized into five parts. Section II provides the background of the Middle Tennessee Area designation status with respect to the various ozone NAAQS. Section III describes the applicable history of federal gasoline regulation. Section IV provides the Agency's policy regarding relaxation of the volatility standards. Section V provides EPA's analysis of the information submitted by Tennessee to support a change for the conventional gasoline volatility standard in the Middle Tennessee Area.

    II. What is the background for the Middle Tennessee Area?

    The Middle Tennessee Area was originally designated as a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 1978 (43 FR 8962). The Middle Tennessee Area, then referred to as the Nashville Area, was geographically defined as Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties, Tennessee. On November 6, 1991, by operation of law under section 181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the Middle Tennessee nonattainment area as a moderate nonattainment area for ozone. See 56 FR 56693. Among the requirements applicable to nonattainment areas for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially for calendar years 1992 and beyond. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in Section III below, a 7.8 psi federal RVP requirement first applied to the Area during the high ozone season given its status as a marginal nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone standard after the effective date of the November 6, 1991 designation.2

    2 The designations were effective January 6, 1992.

    TDEC originally requested a redesignation of the Middle Tennessee Area to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS on November 14, 1994. Tennessee updated its request and maintenance plan on August 9, 1995, and January 19, 1996. EPA approved the redesignation and maintenance plan on October 30, 1996, based on 1992-1994 ambient air quality monitoring data showing the Area attaining the NAAQS. See 61 FR 55903. Tennessee's 1-hour ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan did not include a request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard.

    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated and classified areas for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that was promulgated at a level of 0.085 parts per million on July 18, 1997. See 69 FR 23857. In this action, the Middle Tennessee Area had a pending designation as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a delayed effective date because the Area was an Early Action Compact (EAC) area. EAC areas developed attainment demonstrations and implemented control measures on an expedited schedule to bring areas into compliance with the NAAQS prior to the effective designations. As such, TDEC submitted an attainment demonstration for the Middle Tennessee Area on December 29, 2004. EPA approved the attainment demonstration for the Area on August 26, 2005 (70 FR 50199). Subsequently, the Area showed attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a design value of 0.084 parts per million using quality assured data for the years of 2005-2007. The Area was designated to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in a final rulemaking on April 2, 2008, and was therefore never effectively designated as nonattainment for that NAAQS. See 73 FR 17897. Tennessee did not request to relax the 7.8 psi federal RVP standard in relation to the EAC planning or attainment demonstration.

    Pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), and consistent with EPA guidance, EAC areas submitted plans to demonstrate continued maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 As required, these 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of these areas' designation as attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. These plans also include components demonstrating how each area will continue to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and provide contingency measures should an area violate the NAAQS. On August 3, 2010, TDEC submitted a draft 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and submitted the final SIP revision on October 13, 2010. EPA approved the maintenance plan on January 28, 2011 (76 FR 5078).

    3 US EPA, Lydia Wegman, May 20, 2005. Memorandum and Guidance Document: Maintenance Plan Guidance Document for Certain 8-hour Ozone Areas Under Section 110(a)(1) of Clean Air Act.

    Tennessee is now requesting that EPA remove the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Middle Tennessee Area, and the State submitted a SIP revision on November 21, 2016, revising its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including a noninterference demonstration to support its request.4

    4 Effective July 20, 2012, EPA designated the Middle Tennessee Area as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088 (April 30, 2012). Although the Middle Tennessee Area is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement nonetheless remains in place because the State has never requested removal of the more stringent RVP.

    III. What is the history of the gasoline volatility requirement?

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).

    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658). A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: https://www.epa.gov/gasoline-standards.

    As explained in the December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), Phase II rulemaking, EPA believes that relaxation of an applicable RVP standard is best accomplished in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, section 107(d)(3) of the Act requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to section 175A of the Act, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for the ozone NAAQS for ten years after redesignation. Depending on the area's circumstances, this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA will not relax the volatility standard unless the state requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates, to the satisfaction of EPA, that the area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the more stringent volatility standard.

    As noted previosly, Tennessee did not request relaxation of the applicable 7.8 psi federal RVP standard when the Middle Tennessee Area was redesignated to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Tennessee is therefore now revising its maintenance plan and modeling for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS with a conservative approach in estimating emissions by using a level of 9.0 psi.

    IV. What are the section 110(l) requirements?

    To support Tennessee's request to relax the federal RVP requirement in the Middle Tennessee Area, the State must demonstrate that the requested change will satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l). The modeling associated with Tennessee's maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS is premised upon the 7.8 psi RVP requirements. So the request for a change in the federal RVP requirement is accompanied by a revision to the maintenance plan with updated modeling based on the 9.0 psi RVP. EPA is proposing approval of the revised maintenance plan based on an evaluation of current air quality monitoring data, the information provided in the revised maintenance plan, and the maintenance plan requirements in the CAA.

    EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a noninterference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. EPA's analysis of Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below.

    EPA notes that in this action, it is only proposing to approve the State's technical demonstration that the Area can continue to attain and maintain the NAAQS and meet other CAA requirements after switching to the sale of gasoline with an RVP of 9.0 psi in the Middle Tennessee Area during the high ozone season and to amend the SIP to include this demonstration and revise the maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Consistent with CAA section 211(h) and the Phase II volatility regulations, EPA will initiate a separate rulemaking to relax the current federal requirement to use gasoline with an RVP of 7.8 psi in the Middle Tennessee Area.

    V. What is EPA's analysis of Tennessee's submittal? a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Tennessee's Non-Interference Analyses

    On November 21, 2016, TDEC submitted a SIP revision making changes to the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area, including a noninterference demonstration to support the State's request to modify the RVP summertime gasoline requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Area. This demonstration includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP requirement would have on maintenance of the ozone standards and on the maintenance of the other NAAQS.5 Tennessee focused its analysis on the impact of the change in RVP to attainment and maintenance of the ozone, PM,6 and NO2 NAAQS because RVP requirements do not affect lead, sulfur dioxide (SO2), or carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; because VOC and NOX emissions are precursors for ozone and PM; and because NO2 is a component of NOX.

    5 The six NAAQS for which EPA establishes health and welfare based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, PM, and SO2.

    6 PM is composed of PM2.5 and PM10.

    TDEC's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2014 Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES2014a) emission modeling system to estimate emissions for mobile sources.7 These mobile source emissions are used as part of the evaluation of the potential impacts to the NAAQS that might result exclusively from changing the high ozone season RVP requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi. As summarized in Tables 1 and 2, below, the MOVES model predicted minor increases in mobile source NOX and VOC emissions from the switch to 9.0 psi RVP fuel. Daily on-road mobile NOX emissions are projected to increase by 0.09 tpd in 2018 during the ozone season, while daily on-road mobile VOC emissions are projected to increase by 0.05 tpd (approximately 0.3 percent for both pollutants).

    7 The MOVES2014a model was the latest EPA mobile source model available to the State at the time that it developed its SIP revision. TDEC's modeling using MOVES2014a conforms with EPA's modeling guidance.

    Table 1—On-road Mobile Source Ozone Season NOX Emissions (Aveage Tons/Day) in Middle Tennessee County 7.8 psi RVP 2007 2010 2014 2018 9.0 psi RVP 2018 Davidson 40.50 33.80 24.86 15.88 15.92 Rutherford 20.40 17.10 12.70 8.28 8.30 Sumner 9.20 7.50 5.22 2.94 2.95 Williamson 13.50 11.06 7.82 4.56 4.57 Wilson 13.80 11.31 8.00 4.67 4.68 Total 97.40 80.77 58.59 36.33 36.42 Table 2—On-road Mobile Source Ozone Season VOC Emissions (Average Tons/Day) in Middle Tennessee County 7.8 psi RVP 2007 2010 2014 2018 9.0 psi RVP 2018 Davidson 17.10 14.69 11.47 8.25 8.26 Rutherford 5.60 5.10 4.44 3.75 3.77 Sumner 3.30 2.93 2.45 1.95 1.96 Williamson 4.50 3.93 3.17 2.41 2.41 Wilson 3.30 2.95 2.47 1.99 2.00 Total 33.80 29.60 24.00 18.35 18.40

    TDEC's analysis in the November 21, 2016, submittal shows that RVP relaxation could increase total anthropogenic VOC emissions by 0.8 percent and increase total anthropogenic NOX emissions by 0.1 percent in 2018. Table 3, below, shows the total estimated anthropogenic emissions of NOX and VOC from area, point, on-road, nonroad and aircraft, locomotive, and commercial marine source categories for the Middle Tennessee Area.8 Emissions reported for 2018 in the Table assume the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel whereas emissions from 2007 through 2014 assume the use of 7.8 psi RVP fuel. The 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan Guidance indicates that the principal mechanism for demonstrating continued attainment is a projected future inventory. NOX and VOC emissions are projected to continue to decrease in the Middle Tennessee Area even with the use of 9.0 psi RVP fuel in the entire Area. NOX emissions are expected to decrease by 46% from 2007 to 2018 for the Middle Tennessee Area. Similarly, VOC emissions are expected to decrease by 26% over the same timeframe. Therefore, emissions resulting in the change in RVP are not expected to cause the area to be out of compliance with any NAAQS.

    8 To see more details about emissions inventory development, see Appendices A-D of the November 21, 2016, SIP submittal.

    Table 3—Total Anthropogenic Ozone Season Emissions of NOX and VOC (Average Tons/Day) for Middle Tennessee Year NOX VOC 2007 (7.8 psi RVP) 164.25 126.18 2010 (7.8 psi RVP) 141.48 119.18 2014 (7.8 psi RVP) 115.90 93.30 2018 (9.0 psi RVP) 89.17 92.91 Difference from 2007 to 2018 −75.08 −33.27 b. Noninterference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS

    As described above, the Middle Tennessee Area was redesignated to attainment for purposes of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. This redesignation was based upon a Tennessee redesignation request for the Area which included the required 1-hour ozone monitoring data and maintenance plan ensuring the Area would remain in attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for at least a period of 10 years (consistent with CAA 175A(a)). The maintenance plan requirements remained in place for the counties when they were subsequently designated unclassifiable/attainment on April 30, 2004, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858) effective June 15, 2004. However, because this 1997 8-hour ozone unclassifiable/attainment area had an existing maintenance plan pursuant to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, it was required to submit a 10-year 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As required, 110(a)(1) maintenance plans provide for continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at least 10 years from the effective date of areas' designation as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As a previous 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, the Middle Tennessee Area was already subject to the federal RVP requirements for high ozone season gasoline. Although originally implemented for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these Federal RVP requirements continued to apply to the Middle Tennessee Area per the 110(a)(1) maintenance plan required to show continued attainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    The Middle Tennessee Area is continuing to meet the 1-hour NAAQS, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,9 and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on recent air quality monitoring data. The 2008 ozone NAAQS is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.075 parts per million (ppm) or less. Similarly, the 2015 ozone NAAQS, promulgated October 1, 2015, as published in a final rule on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65292), is met when the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration, averaged over 3 years is 0.070 ppm or less. The trend in design values (DV) for ozone for the Middle Tennessee Area is shown in Table 4, with the current DV in the Area being 0.067 ppm in 2015, below the 2015 standard. EPA also evaluated the potential increase in the VOC and NOX precursor emissions, and whether it is reasonable to conclude that the requested change to RVP requirements in the Areas during the high ozone season would cause the Middle Tennessee Area to be out of compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

    9 The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration. The level of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.075 ppm. The 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design value is greater than 0.075 ppm.

    Table 4—Middle Tennessee Area Ozone Design Value Trends Years Design value (ppm) 2005-2007 0.084 2006-2008 0.084 2007-2009 0.078 2008-2010 0.076 2009-2011 0.075 2010-2012 0.079 2011-2013 0.076 2012-2014 0.072 2013-2015 0.067

    Table 4 also shows that there is an overall downward trend in ozone concentrations in the Middle Tennessee Area. This decline can be attributed to federal and state programs that have led to significant emissions reductions in ozone precursors, such as federal standards in onroad and nonroad mobile source sectors and resultant fleet turnover. Given this downward trend, the downward trend in precursor emissions, the current ozone concentrations in the Middle Tennessee Area, and the results of Tennessee's emissions analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the affected counties would not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the ozone NAAQS in the Area. There has been no formal determination at this point for whether the Middle Tennessee Area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.10 However, for the reasons noted above, EPA is proposing to determine that changing the RVP to 9.0 psi for the Middle Tennessee Area will not significantly impact the Area's ability to attain or maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

    10 EPA will designate areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on 2013-2015 data by October 1, 2017. The deadline for states to submit recommendations for initial designations with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS was October 1, 2016. See 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

    c. Noninterference Analysis for the PM NAAQS

    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 16, 1997, EPA established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852 (July 18, 1997). On September 21, 2006, EPA retained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14, 2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 μg/m3 but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0 μg/m3, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).

    The main precursor pollutants for PM2.5 are NOX, SO2, VOC, and ammonia. As mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, the federal RVP requirements only result in emissions benefits for VOC and NOX. Therefore, Tennessee focused on these two PM2.5 precursors in its analysis of the potential impact of changing the RVP requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area on the PM2.5 NAAQS. Tennessee asserted in its 110(l) demonstration that relaxing the RVP standard will have little impact on these precursor emissions in relation to PM formation and is not expected to negatively impact attainment or maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Moreover, there have been a number of studies which have indicated that SO2 is the primary driver of PM2.5 formation in the Southeast.11

    11 See, e.g., Journal of Environmental Engineering—Quantifying the sources of ozone, fine particulate matter, and regional haze in the Southeastern United States (June 24, 2009), http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journalofenvironmental-management.

    Given the downward trend in precursor emissions noted above and the small increases in those emissions with a relaxation of the RVP standard (less than 0.1 tpd for each pollutant), and given that RVP will not affect the most significant PM2.5 precursor (SO2), EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the affected counties would not interfere with the Area's ability to attain or maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area.

    d. Noninterference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

    On February 17, 2012, EPA designated all counties in Tennessee as unclassifiable/attainment for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532. Based on the technical analysis in Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic NOX emissions associated with the change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the Middle Tennessee Area is approximately 0.09 tpd in 2018. Given the current unclassifiable/attainment designation and the results of Tennessee's emissions and modeling analysis, EPA is proposing to determine that a change to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the Middle Tennessee Area would not interfere with maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in the Area.

    VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision consisting of a revision to its 110(a)(1) maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the Middle Tennessee Area and the technical noninterference demonstration supporting the State's request to relax the RVP standard to 9.0 psi in the Area. Specifically, EPA is proposing to accept updated emissions inventory and projections associated with the mobile source modeling used in the State's noninterference demonstration related to RVP. EPA is also proposing to find that this change in the RVP requirements for the Middle Tennessee Area will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    EPA is proposing that Tennessee's November 21, 2016, SIP revision, including the technical demonstration associated with the State's request for the removal of the federal RVP requirements, and the updated attainment inventory and emissions projections, are consistent with the applicable provisions of the CAA. Should EPA decide to remove the counties of the Middle Tennessee Area from those areas subject to the 7.8 psi federal RVP requirements, such action will occur in a separate, subsequent rulemaking.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 20, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03579 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    82 36 Friday, February 24, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers (SCANR) Study AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection of information for the Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers (SCANR) Study. This is a NEW information collection.

    The SCANR Study will provide FNS with an understanding of the extent to which small retailers participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are able to meet Section 4002 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) requirement that all authorized SNAP retailers use scanning technologies at the point of sale (POS) to redeem SNAP benefits. Understanding the number of small retailers that lack scanning systems, the costs of adopting and maintaining scanning systems, and the barriers small retailers face in adopting the technology are key to informing rulemaking for the 2014 Farm Bill requirement.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed data 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 proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Jenny Laster Genser, Office of Policy Support, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Jenny Laster Genser at 703-305-2559 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to Jenny Laster Genser at 703-305-2559.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers (SCANR) Study.

    OMB Number: 0584—NEW.

    Expiration Date of Approval: Not yet determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The Scanner Capability Assessment of SNAP-Authorized Small Retailers Study will provide FNS with information to inform rulemaking for the 2014 Farm Bill requirement that all authorized SNAP retailers use scanning technologies at the POS to redeem SNAP benefits. This study will result in a comprehensive description of the scanner capability of small SNAP-authorized retailers that will provide FNS with information to inform rulemaking for the 2014 Farm Bill requirement. Cost estimates from the industry interviews and follow-up interviews with retailers and data from secondary sources will be used to estimate store-level costs for adopting scanning systems with different levels of functionality. The cost estimates will account for all costs associated with the purchase, installation, and maintenance of scanning systems. Using the store-level costs and data from the SCANR Survey on the number of small SNAP-authorized retailers without scanning systems, the study will also include the total cost estimate for all small SNAP-authorized retailers to comply with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements. Finally, the study will include a descriptive assessment of the technological and economic barriers small SNAP retailers face in adopting and using scanning systems.

    Specifically, this study will employ a mixed-methods approach in which both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected, analyzed, and synthesized to assess the economic and technological barriers of adopting scanning technologies by small SNAP-authorized retailers and possible inducements. The study design will include industry interviews, a national survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers, and follow-up interviews with a subset of survey respondents to provide qualitative information on the barriers and inducements to adopting scanning systems.

    The study design comprises three data collection components to address four study objectives:

    Objective 1: Determine and describe the requirements for installing and operating electronic scanning systems at small SNAP-authorized retailers.

    Objective 2: Provide a store-level and industry-wide cost analysis of installing and maintaining electronic scanning systems at small SNAP-authorized retailers in order to be in full compliance with the 2014 Farm Bill.

    Objective 3: Provide reliable national estimates of the extent to which scanning systems are in place at small SNAP-authorized retailers.

    Objective 4: Determine barriers and inducements to using scanning technologies by small SNAP-authorized retailers.

    The data collection components are as follows:

    Structured interviews with nine vendors of POS scanning systems to provide information on the requirements and costs for two options of functionality for scanning systems. The structured interviews will be used to address Objectives 1 and 2.

    FNS is interested in the requirements and costs for two options of functionality for scanning systems: (1) Scanning systems that can identify which items are eligible to be purchased with SNAP and are integrated with the store inventory to scan the item's price and (2) scanning systems that can identify which items are eligible to be purchased with SNAP and are integrated with the store inventory to scan the item's price and are integrated with the EBT terminal. The first option will allow a retailer to meet the minimum requirements as outlined in the 2014 Farm Bill. The cost data will be combined with the survey data and data from secondary sources (e.g., labor rates) to conduct a cost analysis to estimate store-level and industry-level costs for complying with the 2014 Farm Bill requirements.

    Nationally representative survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers to provide information on the number of retailers that lack scanning systems and the number that may not comply with this provision and choose to leave SNAP instead. Data will be collected through a nationally representative survey of small SNAP-authorized retailers to provide information to address Objectives 2 and 3.

    The target population for the survey is small SNAP-authorized retailers defined as small grocery stores, medium grocery stores, convenience stores, and specialty stores excluding chains that have 10 or more outlets under the same owner. The sample design for the survey will be sufficiently powered to provide national and subgroup estimates by store type and urbanicity. The survey approach will use multiple modes to facilitate response (hard copy or web-based) and telephone reminders to nonrespondents to maximize the response rate.

    Follow-up interviews with a subset of survey respondents to provide qualitative information on the barriers and inducements to adopting scanning systems. Data will be collected through follow-up interviews with a subset of the retailers that responded to the structured survey to address Objectives 2 and 4.

    Approximately half of the retailers selected for the interviews will be stores that reported on the survey that they currently are using scanning systems (via in-person interviews) and half will be stores that do not use scanning systems (via phone interviews). The interviews will provide the opportunity to learn about costs, benefits, and challenges associated with implementing and operating scanning systems from a group of retailers that currently use them and about costs and other concerns of retailers that do not use scanning systems. Interview questions will also provide insight regarding the level of knowledge about scanning technology among small retailers and the information gaps, particularly among nonusers.

    Affected Public: Business for profit.

    There are a total of 1,389. The respondent groups that were identified include 12 POS vendors and 1,377 SNAP-authorized small retailers.

    Industry Interviews

    • POS vendors that supply retailers with scanning systems. We estimate that nine vendors will participate in the interviews.

    SCANR Survey

    • SNAP-authorized small retailers: Store owner, store manager, or regional manager. Out of 1,377 respondents, we estimate that 936 of the small retailers sampled will go on to participate in the survey.

    Follow-Up Interviews

    • SNAP-authorized small retailers: Store owner, store manager, or regional manager. Out of 936 small retailers who participated in the SCANR survey, we estimate that 50 of them will take part in a follow-up interview.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 1,389.

    For the industry interviews, it is estimated that 12 of the industry interview respondents will be contacted and, of these, 9 will complete the interview, 3 will be non-respondents.

    For the SCANR Survey, a multimode, two-phase approach will be used. For phase I (survey), respondents can choose to participate by hard copy (mail survey) or web, and for phase II (interview), all non-respondents will be re-contacted by phone and asked to complete the survey (by phone or reminded to complete the survey by mail or web). Out of 123,000 small retailers, a sample of 1,377 will be selected. It is estimated that, of these, 207 will not be eligible for the survey (e.g., no longer in operation), 585 will complete phase I (50% response rate after adjusting for eligibility), and 351 will complete phase II (60% response rate), yielding 936 completed surveys. Adjusting for eligibility, we are targeting an 80% response rate (936/(1,377−207)).

    For the follow-up interviews, a sample of 71 respondents that completed the SCANR Survey will be selected for either telephone or on-site interviews. It is estimated that 50 of the selected respondents will take part in the interview (70% response rate).

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.545.

    For the industry interviews with vendors, there is one response per respondent. For retailers, there is one response for 886 of the respondents (SCANR Survey only) and two responses for 50 of the respondents who participate in follow-up interviews.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 1,925.

    For the industry interviews, this total includes 9 completed interviews with vendors and 3 attempted interviews. For the SCANR Survey, this total includes 936 responses from small retailers and 441 attempted, but non-completed or non-responses. For the follow-up interviews, this total includes 50 completed interviews and 21 attempted interviews.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.21.

    For the telephone interviews with vendors: Vendors will take up to 1 hour to participate in the telephone interviews. Vendors who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

    For the SCANR Survey: Small retailers will take 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to respond to the survey (via mail, web, or phone). Small retailers who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

    For the follow-up interviews: Small retailers will take 30 minutes (0.5 hours) to respond to the in-depth telephone or on-site interviews. Small retailers selected for a follow-up interview who choose not to participate will spend 5 minutes (0.08 hours) reading the recruitment materials.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: FNS estimates the total burden is 345.57 hours. See Table 1 below:

    BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN24FE17.003 Dated: February 8, 2017. Jessica Shahin, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03570 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Evaluation of the Direct Certification With Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price (DCM-F/RP) Meals Demonstrations AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), U.S. Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a new collection for the Evaluation of the Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstrations.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (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 those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Conor McGovern, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1040, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Conor McGovern at 703-305-2576 or via email to [email protected]. Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1040, Alexandria, VA 22302.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Conor McGovern at 703-457-7740.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Evaluation of the Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstrations.

    Form Number: N/A.

    OMB Number: Not Yet Assigned.

    Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: Direct certification has improved access to free school meals while easing the burden on families and district staff by reducing the use of household applications and decreasing the number of students subject to verification for school meal benefit eligibility. Direct certification also improves program integrity because it is less error-prone than certification by application.

    Recently, FNS has sought ways to further expand direct certification, including experimenting with allowing direct certification based on data from means-tested programs that do not confer categorical eligibility. Prior DCM demonstrations have authorized selected States and districts to use income information from Medicaid files to determine students' eligibility based on their household income and directly certify those students found to be eligible for free meals. The new DCM-F/RP demonstration expands the use of direct certification using income information from Medicaid files to include eligibility for reduced-price meals. The evaluation of the DCM-F/RP demonstration will investigate the processes, challenges, and outcomes of using Medicaid data to directly certify students.

    The study will gather data from State, School Food Authority,1 and State Agency vendor staff, including (1) site visits and follow-up interviews to document DCM-F/RP processes, (2) administrative records on certification for school meal benefits and participation in the school meal programs, and (3) cost logs and clarification interviews on the State-level administrative costs of DCM-F/RP. Data will be collected for school year (SY) 2017-2018.

    1 Because nearly all schools in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program are parts of entities commonly known as school districts, we use that term in the rest of this document instead of School Food Authority to refer to local entities that enter into agreements with State agencies to operate the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.

    FNS is also conducting research with the State Child Nutrition and Medicaid agency officials, school district directors and school district food service staff to develop, test, and improve the evaluation data collection instruments and methodologies. This pre-testing burden was approved by the Office of Management and Budget on December 19, 2016 under OMB # 0584-0606 FNS Generic Clearance for Pre-Testing, Pilot, and Field Test Studies.

    Affected Public: State and Local Government—Respondent groups identified include (1) State Child Nutrition Agency staff who administer the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program from 15 State agencies, (2) State Medicaid Agency staff from 15 State agencies, (3) staff from 3 other State Agencies that play key roles in the direct certification process, and (4) school district staff from 32 districts.

    Businesses—Respondent groups identified include 2 State Child Nutrition agency vendors and 2 Medicaid Agency vendors that play key roles in the direct certification process.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of unique respondents for SY 2017-2018 is 197 (193 respondents and 4 non-respondents). This count assumes 100 percent response from State Child Nutrition Agency staff on site visits, follow-up telephone interviews, administrative records requests, and cost data collection. For State Medicaid Agency staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and 93 percent response on the follow-up telephone interviews and cost data collection. For other State Agency staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and cost data collection. For school district staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visits and 91 percent response on follow-up telephone interviews. For State Agency vendor staff, it assumes 100 percent response on site visit interviews. State Child Nutrition Agency, State Medicaid Agency, other State Agency, and district staff are expected to participate in multiple data collection activities, but each individual is counted only once in the total.

    A total of 45 State Child Nutrition Agency staff (3 per State) will take part in the on-site interviews, with 30 of those respondents (2 per State) also taking part in on-site observations. Of the 45 State Child Nutrition Agency respondents, 15 (one from each State) will complete the follow-up telephone interview, administrative records request, and collection logs used to track State cost data. A total of 45 State Medicaid Agency staff (3 per State) will also take part in the on-site interviews, with 30 of those respondents (2 per State) also taking part in the on-site observations. Of the 45 State Medicaid Agency respondents, 15 (one from each State) will be asked to complete the follow-up telephone interview and collection logs used to track State cost data (including 14 respondents and 1 non-responder). A total of 3 respondents from other State Agencies (1 in each of 3 States) will take part in the on-site interviews and complete the collection logs used to track State cost data.

    A total of 96 district respondents (3 per participating district) will take part in the on-site interviews, with 64 (2 per district) of those respondents also taking part in on-site observations. Of the 96 district respondents, 32 (one per district) will be asked to complete the follow-up telephone interview (including 29 respondents and 3 non-responders).

    A total of 4 respondents from State Agency vendors (1 for each of 2 State Child Nutrition Agency vendors and 2 Medicaid Agency vendors) will take part in the on-site interviews.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: The average estimated annual number of responses per respondent is 5.168 (5.217 for respondents and 2.75 for non-respondents). Site visits (including interviews and observations—both preceded by advance letters and scheduling calls) with State- and district-level staff will take place once during the year, and follow-up telephone interviews (preceded by scheduling calls) with State- and district-level staff will take place once later in the year. Administrative records data will be requested via email and collected twice during the year. Cost data will also be requested via email and collected through cost-tracking logs and interviews with State-level administrators four times during the year.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: We estimate that 1,007 total responses will be gathered in SY 2017-2018 (including 1,003 responses from state and local government entities and 4 from businesses) from 193 respondents (189 state and local government entities and 4 business entities). A further 11 responses from 4 non-responders (all from state and local government entities) are anticipated, for a total of 1,018 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time per response is 0.879 hours (approximately 53 minutes). The estimated time of response varies from 2 minutes to 4 hours depending upon respondent action, as shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The total estimated annual burden is 894.675 hours, as shown in the table below.

    BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN24FE17.000 EN24FE17.001 EN24FE17.002 Dated: February 8, 2017. Jessica Shahin, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03569 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Idaho Advisory Committee To Vote on 2016 School Equity Report and To Discuss Civil Rights Topics in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Idaho State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 1:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Friday, March 10, 2017, for the purpose discussing civil rights issues in the state and deliberating on a topic of study. The Committee will also discuss a report on school equity in the state.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, March 10, 2017, at 1:00 p.m. MST.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call information:

    Dial: 800-327-5138.

    Conference ID: 3765784.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] or (213) 894-3437.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 800-327-5138, conference ID number: 3765784. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8311, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (213) 894-3437.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=245. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome II. Discussion of 2016 School Equity Report III. Discussion of Civil Rights Issues in Idaho—Members of the Idaho Advisory Committee IV. Public Comment V. Adjournment Dated: February 21, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03673 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-455-805] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Poland: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Poland is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Bailey, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 55438 (August 19, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 85208 (November 25, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Poland” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Poland. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

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

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that, in the preliminary determination, the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Synthos Dwory (Synthos) that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Synthos as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average margins
  • (percent)
  • Synthos Dwory 25.43 All-Others 25.43
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

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

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On February 3, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Synthos requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    7See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Synthos, entitled, “Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Poland: Request to Extend the Final Determination,” dated February 3, 2017.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.

    ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product).

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison-Market Prices X. Currency Conversion XI. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-03638 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-890] Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation of the AD duty order.

    DATES:

    Effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aleksandras Nakutis or Howard Smith, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3147 or 202-482-5193, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 4, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC.1 On November 3, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the initiation notice for the second sunset review of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).2 On December 3, 2015, the Department received a substantive response from the domestic industry to participate in the second sunset review; 3 no other parties participated. As a result of its review, the Department determined, pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) and (c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.4 On February 14, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.5

    Scope of the Order

    1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 329 (January 4, 2005) (“Order”).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 67705 (November 3, 2015).

    3See letter form the American Furniture Manufacturers Committee for Legal Trade and Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Company, Inc. to the Department, regarding “Five-Year(“Sunset”) Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China/The Domestic Industry's Substantive Response to the Notice of Initiation,” dated December 3, 2015.

    4See Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 81 FR 12462 (March 9, 2016) (“Final Results”).

    5See Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China; Determination, 82 FR 10587 (February 14, 2017), and USITC Publication 4665 (January 2017), entitled Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-1058 (Second Review).

    The product covered by the Order is wooden bedroom furniture, subject to certain exceptions. Imports of subject merchandise are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings: 9403.50.9042 and 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “wooden . . . beds” and under subheading 9403.50.9080 of the HTSUS as “other . . . wooden furniture of a kind used in the bedroom.” In addition, wooden headboards for beds, wooden footboards for beds, wooden side rails for beds, and wooden canopies for beds may also be entered under subheading 9403.50.9042 or 9403.50.9045 of the HTSUS as “parts of wood.” Subject merchandise may also be entered under subheadings 9403.50.9041, 9403.60.8081, or 9403.20.0018. Further, framed glass mirrors may be entered under subheading 7009.92.1000 or 7009.92.5000 of the HTSUS as “glass mirrors . . . framed.” However, the product description, and not the HTSUS classification, is dispositive of whether merchandise imported into the United States falls within the scope of the order.6

    6 For a full description of the scope of the order, including exclusions, see Final Results and the accompanying “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the People's Republic of China” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Continuation of the Order

    As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the AD duty order would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(a), the Department hereby orders the continuation of the AD duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect AD duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of the continuation of the order will be the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice of continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c)(2), the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of the order not later than 30 days prior to the fifth anniversary of the effective date of continuation.

    This five-year sunset review and this notice are in accordance with section 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return/destruction or conversion to judicial protective order of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Failure to comply is a violation of the APO which may be subject to sanctions.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03639 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-848] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Mexico: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Mexico is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-2243, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 55438 (August 19, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 85208 (November 25, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcment and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Mexico. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

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

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira (Negromex) that is not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Negromex as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira 13.77 All-Others 13.77
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

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

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On January 24, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Negromex requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    7See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Negromex entitled, “Negromex's Request for Extension of Final Determination and Provisional Measures,” dated January 24, 2017.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.

    ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product).

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Constructed Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arms'-Length Test C. Level of Trade D. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test E. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices X. Currency Conversion
    [FR Doc. 2017-03625 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-890] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Bethea or Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1491 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 55438 (August 19, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 85208 (November 25, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Korea,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is ESB rubber from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

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

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The Department has calculated export prices in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. Normal value (NV) For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part

    In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for LG Chem, Ltd. (LG Chem). However, because Daewoo International Corporation (Daewoo) and Kumho Petrochemical Co, Ltd (Kumho) did not respond to the Department's questionnaires, we have determined pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, that critical circumstances exist for both Daewoo and Kumho as adverse facts available (AFA). For a full description of the methodology and results of our critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Adverse Facts Available

    Daewoo and Kumho were each selected as a mandatory respondent, but each failed to respond to the Department's questionnaires. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine to based their dumping margins on AFA, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. As AFA, we applied the highest dumping margin calculated for Korean exports of subject merchandise contained in the petition,6 44.30 percent. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    6See the Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, dated July 21, 2016.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    The Department calculated a company-specific rate for LG Chem that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. However, the Department is preliminarily applying AFA, pursuant to section 776(a) and (b) of the Act, to Daewoo and Kumho. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for LG Chem as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average margins
  • (percent)
  • LG Chem, Ltd. 11.63 Daewoo International Corporation 44.30 Kumho Petrochemical Co, Ltd 44.30 All-Others 11.63
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered, or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The Department preliminarily finds that critical circumstances exist for imports of subject merchandise produced and exported by Daewoo and Kumho. In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, the suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise from the exporters identified in this paragraph that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of this notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    7See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

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

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On January 10, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), LG Chem requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.8 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    8See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from LG Chem, entitled, “LG Chem's Request for Extension of Final Determination and Provisional Measures,” dated January 10, 2017.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary affirmative determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.

    ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product).

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Export Price and Constructed Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices X. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference A. Application of Facts Available B. Use of Adverse Inference C. Selection and Corroboration of the AFA Rate XI. Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part A. Legal Framework B. Critical Circumstances Analysis C. Analysis XII. Currency Conversion XIII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-03637 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-849] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, Postponement of Final Determination, and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective February 24, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Drew Jackson, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4406.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    This preliminary determination is made in accordance with section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on August 19, 2016.1 The Department postponed the preliminary determination of this investigation until February 16, 2017.2 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.3 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico and Poland: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 55438 (August 19, 2016) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 81 FR 85208 (November 25, 2016).

    3See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less Than Fair Value Investigation of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

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

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,4 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope).5 No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. The Department is not preliminarily modifying the scope language as it appeared in the Initiation Notice.

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

    5See Initiation Notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    In accordance with section 733(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we preliminarily find that critical circumstances do not exist for mandatory respondent, Arlanxeo Brasil S.A. (Arlanxeo Brasil), or for exporters and producers not individually investigated (i.e., “all others”). For a full description of the methodology and results of our critical circumstances analysis, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provide that in the preliminary determination the Department shall determine an estimated all-others rate for all exporters and producers not individually investigated, which shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    The Department calculated a company-specific rate for Arlanxeo Brasil that is not zero, de minimis or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of determining the “all-others” rate and pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we are using the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for Arlanxeo Brasil as the estimated weighted-average dumping margin assigned to all other producers and exporters of the merchandise under consideration.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Arlanxeo Brasil S.A. 34.44 All-Others 34.44
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of subject merchandise as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, as discussed below. Further, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

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

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. Section 351.210(e)(2) of the Department's regulations requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On January 17, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(e), Arlanxeo Brasil requested that the Department postpone the final determination and that provisional measures be extended to a period not to exceed six months.7 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because: (1) Our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination.

    7See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Arlanxeo Brasil, entitled, “Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil: Arlanxeo's Request for Extension of Final Determination,” dated January 17, 2017.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the International Trade Commission (ITC) of our preliminary determination. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I

    Scope of the Investigation

    For purposes of this investigation, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigation includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.

    ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigation covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”

    Specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product).

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (“CAS”) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope Comments V. Discussion of the Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VI. Date of Sale VII. Product Comparisons VIII. Constructed Export Price IX. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Level of Trade C. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 3. Results of the COP Test D. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison-Market Prices X. Preliminary Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances A. Legal Framework B. Critical Circumstances Analysis C. Analysis XI. Currency Conversion XII. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2017-03631 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 150901797-7177-02] RIN 0648-XE163 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Thorny Skate as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; 12-month finding and availability of status review document.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, have completed a comprehensive status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) in response to a petition to list this species. Based on the best scientific and commercial information available, including the status review report, and taking into account ongoing efforts to protect this species, we have determined that the listing of a Northwest Atlantic (NWA) distinct population segment (DPS) or a U.S. DPS is not warranted at this time. While the petition only sought the listing of one of two alternative DPSs, we exercised our discretion to consider whether the listing of the species at the taxonomic level is warranted. We conclude that thorny skate is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

    DATES:

    This finding was made on February 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The status review document for thorny skate is available electronically at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/notwarranted.htm. You may also obtain a copy by submitting a request to the Protected Resources Division, NMFS GARFO, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attention: Thorny Skate 12-month Finding.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Damon-Randall, NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 978-282-8485; or Marta Nammack, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 301-427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    We received a petition, dated May 28, 2015, from Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and Defenders of Wildlife (DW) requesting that we list a “Northwest Atlantic DPS” of thorny skate as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or, as an alternative, a “U.S. DPS” as threatened or endangered. The petition also requests we designate critical habitat for thorny skate. In response to this petition, we published a “positive” 90-finding on October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65175), in which we concluded that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that listing under the ESA may be warranted, and a review of the status of the species was initiated.

    We then performed a detailed review and determined that the best available scientific and commercial information does not support a listing. The resulting status review report included an in-depth review of the available scientific literature, an analysis of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)), and an assessment of extinction risk. The status review report was independently peer reviewed by external experts. This listing determination is based on the status review report, along with other published and unpublished information.

    Listing Species Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether the thorny skate is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). To make this determination, we first consider whether a group of organisms constitutes a “species” under section 3 of the ESA, then whether the status of the species qualifies it for listing as either threatened or endangered. Section 3 of the ESA defines species to include “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” On February 7, 1996, NMFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; together, the Services) adopted a policy describing what constitutes a DPS of a taxonomic species (61 FR 4722). Under the joint DPS policy, we consider the following when identifying a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs.

    Section 3 of the ESA further defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, we interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species,” on the other hand, is not presently in danger of extinction, but is likely to become so in the foreseeable future (that is, at a later time). In other words, the primary statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened). Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA also requires us to determine whether any species is endangered or threatened as a result of any of the following five factors: The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; disease or predation; the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)(A)-(E)). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation or political subdivision thereof to protect the species. In evaluating the efficacy of existing domestic protective efforts, we rely on the Services' joint Policy on Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (“PECE”; 68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003) for any conservation efforts that have not been implemented or have been implemented but not yet demonstrated effectiveness.

    Status Review

    The status review report for thorny skate is composed of two components: (1) A scientific literature review and analysis of the five ESA section 4(a)(1) factors and (2) an assessment of the extinction risk. A biologist in NMFS' Greater Atlantic Region, working in cooperation with NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), completed the first component, undertaking a scientific review of the life history and ecology, distribution and abundance, and an analysis of the ESA section 4(a)(1) factors. The Extinction Risk Assessment (ERA) was compiled by a biologist in NMFS' Greater Atlantic Region. The ERA was informed by invited workshop participants who based their individual expert opinions on the information contained in the scientific literature review. The workshop participants were comprised of a fisheries management specialist from NMFS' Highly Migratory Species Management Division, two research fishery biologists from NMFS' Northeast Fisheries Science Center, an elasmobranch expert from Sharks International, a fisheries manager from the New England Fishery Management Council, and a research director from the New England Aquarium. The workshop participants had expertise in elasmobranch biology and ecology, population dynamics, fisheries management, climate change and/or stock assessment science. The workshop participants reviewed the information from the scientific literature review. The status review report for thorny skate (NMFS 2017) compiles the best available information on the status of the species as required by the ESA, provides an evaluation of the discreteness and significance of populations in terms of the DPS policy, and assesses the current and future extinction risk, focusing primarily on threats related to the five statutory factors set forth above. We prepared this report to summarize the workshop participants' professional judgments of the extinction risk facing thorny skate. The workshop participants made no recommendations as to the listing status of the species, nor does the status review report. The status review report is available electronically at the Web site listed in ADDRESSES.

    The status review report underwent independent peer review as required by the Office of Management and Budget Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (M-05-03; December 16, 2004). The status review report was peer reviewed by three independent specialists selected from government, academic, and scientific communities, with expertise in elasmobranch biology, conservation and management, and specific knowledge of thorny skates. The peer reviewers were asked to evaluate the adequacy, quality, and completeness of the data considered and whether uncertainties in these data were identified and characterized in the status review report, as well as to evaluate the findings made in the “Assessment of Extinction Risk” section of the report. They were also asked to specifically identify any information missing or lacking justification, or whether information was applied incorrectly in reaching conclusions. We addressed all peer reviewer comments prior to finalizing the status review report. Comments received are posted online at www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/ID365.html.

    We subsequently reviewed the status review report, the cited references, and the peer review comments, and we concluded that the status review report, upon which this listing determination is based, provides the best available scientific and commercial information on thorny skate. Much of the information discussed below on thorny skate biology, genetic diversity, distribution, abundance, threats, and extinction risk is attributable to the status review report. However, we have independently applied the statutory provisions of the ESA, including evaluation of the factors set forth in section 4(a)(1)(A)-(E); our regulations regarding listing determinations; and, our DPS and Significant Portion of its Range (SPR) policies in making the listing determination.

    Distribution and Habitat Use

    The thorny skate belongs to the family Rajidae, genus Amblyraja, and species radiata. The thorny skate is a widely distributed boreal species, spanning both sides of the Atlantic. In the western North Atlantic, it ranges from western Greenland to South Carolina. In the eastern North Atlantic, it ranges from the Barents Sea southward to the southwestern coasts of Ireland and England, including Iceland (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Found over a wide variety of substrates including sand, broken shell, gravel, pebbles and soft mud, the thorny skate ranges over depths from 18 to 1400 m (COSEWIC 2012).

    Despite its generalist nature, some habitat preferences exist. There is some evidence that the species prefers complex hard bottom habitat instead of sand or mud. Scott (1982) reported that catch rates of thorny skate were highest on coarser grained sediment, and catch rates diminished as grain size decreased on the Scotian Shelf. Also, more skates are caught by longlines in bottom areas that are considered categorized as rough versus those considered smooth (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    Generally, thorny skate appear to prefer deeper waters within their range, although the specific depth varies by location and may be impacted by other factors including temperature. Survey data from the inshore waters in the Gulf of Maine stratified by depth indicate catch by trawl survey gear increases sharply in depths greater than 40 meters (m), and peaks at around 95 m. Most individuals are caught between 70 m and the upper depth limit for the survey, 120 m (Sosebee et al., in prep). Generally, within U.S. waters, they range from a depth of 141 to 300 m in spring and 31 to 500 m in fall, with the majority of both spring and fall captures between 141 to 300 m (Packer et al., 2003). Previous studies found thorny skate most abundant between 111 m and 366 m throughout the U.S. range (McEachran and Musick 1975). In Canadian waters from the Labrador Shelf to the Grand Banks, 88 percent of thorny skate are found between 30 and 350 m (COSEWIC 2012). In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, thorny skate have been found to be increasingly concentrated in depths below 100 m since the early 1990s, with the majority of fish greater than 33 centimeters (cm) in length found around 200 m (Swain and Benoit 2006). Fish smaller than 33 cm concentrate in shallower waters around 100 m in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In Norway, thorny skate show a preference for even deeper waters, being more concentrated between 600 and 650 m (Williams et al., 2008). Within the Barents Sea, average catch is highest between 100 and 200 m but thorny skates are captured all the way to 800 m (Dolgov et al., 2005a). Together, this information demonstrates that thorny skate occur in a wide range of depths throughout their range, but are most likely to occur in deeper waters.

    Thorny skate have been caught at temperatures ranging from −1.4 to 14 °Celsius (C) (McEachran and Musick 1975); however, they have a more narrow thermal range than most sympatric species (Hogan et al., 2013). In the U.S. waters of the inshore Gulf of Maine, surveys catch nearly twice as many skates at 2.5 °C as between 4.5 and 9.5 °C, with catch rates dropping off sharply for temperatures warmer than 10 °C (Sosebee et al., in prep). Generally, in U.S. waters during spring, adult thorny skate were found at temperatures between 2 and 13 °C, with the majority between 4 and 7 °C. During the fall, they were found over a temperature range of 3 and 13 °C, with the majority found between 5-8 °C (Packer et al., 2003). Preliminary tagging results are available from a 2016 Gulf of Maine study with data from 23 thorny skate with pop-up satellite archival transmitting (PSAT) tags. The daily (min/max) temperature records from all PSAT-tagged skates indicated that thorny skate occurred in temperatures of 4.5-10.5 °C from November to August and have a broad temperature tolerance (J. Kneebone, pers. comm.). On the Grand Banks, catches of thorny skate are generally highest between 3 and 5 °C, although catch has concentrated on the warmer edge of the Bank since the 1990s (Colbourne and Kulka 2004). A similar concentration on the edge of the banks has been observed in the Gulf of St Lawrence, correlating with temperatures between 2 and 4 °C (Swain and Benoit, 2006). Few thorny skates were caught where temperature was <0 °C. The available information consistently demonstrates that thorny skate are most likely to occur in areas with cooler water temperatures (0 to 14 °C).

    Seasonal migrations have been noted on the Scotian Shelf and the Grand Banks, but are not well understood (NEFSC 2003). Within the Gulf of St. Lawrence, skates move into deeper waters in November and December and into shallower waters in April and May, with peak numbers present there in late summer and fall (Clay 1991; Darbyson and Benoit 2003). A change in spring and fall distributions results in higher density and concentration of biomass in deeper waters during the spring, corresponding with areas of warmer temperature in Canadian waters (Kulka and Miri 2003). These may be examples of skates seeking out their preferred temperature range.

    Few data are available regarding thorny skates' preferred salinity, although catch is highest between 32 and 35 practical salinity units (PSU) (COSEWIC, 2012). In U.S. waters during the spring, they are primarily caught at salinities of 33-34 PSU and in the fall at salinities of 32-35 parts per thousand (ppt), with more than 60 percent at 33 ppt (Packer et al., 2003). In the Barents Sea, thorny skate are caught at a much larger range of salinities than other species (Dolgov et al., 2004a).

    Thorny skates eat a varied diet, with smaller skates consuming copepods, krill, polychaete worms and amphipods, and larger skates eating other fish and larger crustaceans including shrimp and crabs (Skjaeraasen and Bergstad 2000; Dolgov 2002). Thorny skate are opportunistic feeders; important fish prey species can include cod, capelin, and redfish (Pedersen 1995; Dolgov 2002). Within the Gulf of Maine, fish make up the majority of the thorny skate diet (Link and Sosebee 2011).

    Overall, thorny skate are considered a habitat generalist, found over a wide variety of substrates, depths and temperatures. Thorny skate vary widely in depth preferences over the range of the species (Dolgov et al., 2005a; COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep), likely indicating an ability to seek out ideal temperatures.

    Life History

    Thorny skate, like other skate, ray and shark species, are relatively slow-growing, late to mature and have low fecundity when compared to bony fishes. An oviparous (egg-laying) species, they reproduce year-round (Kneebone et al., 2007), although more females contain mature egg capsules in the summer (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). In the Gulf of Maine, average egg capsule size is largest in October (Sulikowski et al., 2005a). Mature females are estimated to produce an average of 40.5 eggs per year, with a hatching success of 38 percent (COSEWIC 2012). Others have estimated up to 56 eggs per year, slightly higher than similar species (McPhie and Campana 2009). Incubation time is long and, depending on temperature (low water temperatures slow development), is estimated to take from 2.5-3 years after deposit (Berestovskii 1994).

    Lifespan for the species is difficult to estimate, due to the slow growth of the species and limited number of maximum-sized fish available for aging. A limited number of maximum-sized fish may result from fishing and natural mortality or from differential capture rates for different sized skates. Individuals estimated to be up to 16 years of age using vertebral and caudal thorn aging have been observed from the Gulf of Maine (Sulikowski et al., 2005b) and from Greenland (Gallagher et al., 2006), respectively. Long-term tagging indicated these fish may live at least 20 years in Canadian waters (Templeman 1984) and further vertebral aging confirmed with radiocarbon bomb dating methodology indicated a maximum age of at least 28 years for individuals caught off the Scotian Shelf (McPhie and Campana 2009). Theoretical longevity was estimated at up to 39 years, much longer compared to other native skates (McPhie and Campana 2009).

    Total length and length at reproductive maturity vary widely over the species' range. Maximum length and length at maturity (L50) decrease with increases in latitude. Maximum lengths range from 90 cm on the Labrador Shelf to 100-110 cm in the Gulf of Maine (COSEWIC 2012). The smallest L50s were reported farthest north, with female L50 reported at 44-47 cm, and male L50 at 44-50 cm reported for skates caught around Baffin Island on the Labrador Shelf (Templeman 1987). In the Gulf of Maine, L50 for females occurred at approximately 11 years and 87.5 cm; for males, L50 was reached at 10.9 years and 85.6 cm (Sulikowski et al., 2005b). A later study on the eastern Scotian Shelf (midway between these populations) noted that female skates could show signs of maturity anywhere from 39.0-74.5 cm and males between 51.0-78.0 cm (McPhie and Campana 2009). The reasons behind variation in total length and length at maturity are unknown but may stem from environmental or genetic factors.

    Age at maturity was estimated to be 11 years for females and 10.9 years for males. Size and age at maturity for thorny skate were greater and also demonstrated more variability than for sympatric skate species (Sosebee 2005; McPhie and Campana, 2009). Size and maturity were not found to correlate with depth (Templeman 1987).

    Overall, thorny skates were found to have the highest potential reproductive rate and predicted population increase when compared to sympatric skate species (McPhie and Campana 2009); this may indicate a greater ability to recover from fishing for thorny skate than for similar species. Reproductive rate is still considered low overall compared to teleost species.

    Population Structure

    Tagging data from both sides of the Atlantic show thorny skates remaining in or returning to the same area with 85 percent of individuals traveling less than 120 kilometers (km) from their tagging locations (Templeman 1984; Walker et al., 1997). In both studies, 13 percent of individuals traveled longer distances between 180 and 445 km. Preliminary study results from a 2016 study in the Gulf of Maine recovered data from five thorny skates tagged with PSATs in the vicinity of Cashes Ledge. The tag results indicated movements of 3-26 km at 100 days post-tagging (J. Kneebone, pers.comm). Three thorny skates tagged offshore in the Gulf of Maine near the Hague line exhibited movements of 3.5-6.5 km over 100 days post-tagging. In the western Gulf of Maine (Massachusetts Bay), data from 13 PSAT-tagged skates indicated distance traveled of 2-30 km over 100-day (n=12) and 200-day (n=1) tag deployment periods (J. Kneebone, pers. comm.). Collectively, these preliminary data corroborate previously published data and further demonstrate that thorny skates exhibit limited movements in the Gulf of Maine. However, some thorny skates off the coast of Newfoundland were observed to travel rapidly, with several individuals moving up to 200 km within a few months (Templeman 1984).

    Conventional tagging data have several limitations when it comes to accurately monitoring movement for this species, including that all returns are produced from commercial fishing gear. First, these data rely on recaptures and reporting (commercial/recreational fishermen or surveys may report catch of a tagged fish) and the information obtained is generally limited to the location where the fish was recaptured in relation to where it was originally tagged. Second, the information from conventional tagging is limited by the small number of thorny skates tagged and recaptured. Return rates in the western Atlantic were 14 percent (Templeman 1984) and 25 percent in the eastern Atlantic (Walker et al., 1997). The prosecution of fisheries in relatively shallow waters compared to the depth range of the species limits returns and therefore, data, because there are fewer opportunities for recapture. A particularly low rate of return of five percent was observed for skates tagged offshore (Templeman 1984), making it difficult to understand offshore movements. However, based on the available information, thorny skates are capable of occasional long distance movements, and this may be sufficient to promote reproductive mixing across the species' range.

    Comparisons with sympatric skate species suggest that the thorny skate has one of the highest levels of haplotype and nucleotide genetic diversity when compared to other western Atlantic skate species, although this can be skewed by some individuals (Coulson et al., 2011). Haplotype and nucleotide diversity are useful metrics for assessing species genetic diversity because they can be influenced by factors such as the size and age of a population and degree of connectivity between populations. High genetic diversity was also detected in studies that examined additional genetic markers (Chevolot et al., 2007, Lynghammar et al., 2014). Overall, barcode gap analysis (an analytical tool wherein the barcoding gap is the difference between interspecific and intraspecific genetic distance within a group of organisms) indicates the genetic distance within the thorny skate species is low compared to the average genetic distance within other species in the skate family (0.93 v. 3.9 percent, Lynghammar et al., 2014). This means that, within the skate species sampled, thorny skates are genetically more similar to each other, suggesting greater gene flow across their range, than all of the other skate species in this study.

    Distribution of genetic diversity did not mirror geographic distribution in the thorny skate, with the center of the range having the highest genetic diversity (Lynghammar et al., 2014). Highest diversity in one study occurred between two adjacent sites in the eastern Atlantic, and when these were removed, there was no significant difference in genetic diversity between remaining sites (Chevolot et al., 2007). Thorny skates captured in Iceland had the highest levels of diversity with fourteen different haplotypes present; thorny skates from the eastern and western Atlantic sites had significantly lower levels with three haplotypes each. The distribution of specific genetic haplotypes and the depth range of the species likely indicate gene flow across the range of the species (Chevolot et al., 2007) and indicate that there are not isolated populations, as there is no significant gap in distribution across the species' range (COSEWIC 2012).

    Comparisons of haplotype frequencies between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic alone indicated that there was a statistically significant difference between haplotype frequencies of thorny skates in these two areas; however, when samples from Greenland were included, the differences in haplotype frequencies among thorny skates from these locations were not statistically significant (Lynghammar et al., 2014). Additionally, Greenland represented a higher number of genetic haplotypes than either the Northwest or Northeast Atlantic, confirming previous results and suggesting that genetic mixing is occurring in the center of the species' range (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

    Further work comparing individuals of different sizes from two sites in the Gulf of Maine and two sites in Canadian waters found no significant genetic differences (Tsang et al., 2008). Comparison of “late maturing” skates collected mostly north of Newfoundland and “early maturing” skates collected within Canadian waters south of Newfoundland also showed no significant genetic differences (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

    In summary, current information indicates thorny skates in the Northwestern Atlantic comprise a single stock, despite the differences in length and length at maturity. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic, but the center of the range appears to have genetic mixing between these two areas. This is likely made possible by the depth range of the species, which allows for continuous distribution as there are no known barriers to migration.

    Abundance and Trends

    The best available information regarding population abundance and trends is provided by independent trawl surveys within different regions of the species' range. Trawl surveys underestimate thorny skate abundance, however, because skates are able to escape capture by sliding under the foot rope of trawl gear (Templeman 1984). Capture efficiency varies widely with the configuration of the gear and size of the fish, as well as area (COSEWIC 2012), making it difficult to compare results or pool surveys. In addition, surveys are generally conducted to support fisheries management and are designed for other (commercial) species and thus may not be optimal for estimating skate abundance. In Europe, the areas surveyed do not always overlap with areas of known thorny skate abundance, particularly in deeper waters (Templeman 1984; Walker and Hislop 1998). Across the species' range, available data vary widely in survey gear, timing of surveys, and time series, making comparisons between different areas difficult (COSEWIC 2012).

    Trawl surveys are limited in the types of bottom they can survey. For trawls, catch efficiency increases with the smoothness of the bottom. The roughest bottoms may be avoided by survey operators to prevent gear hang-ups. The increase in number and length of skates caught by longline surveys, particularly on rough bottom (Sosebee et al., in prep), confirms that trawl gear underestimates total abundance and biomass of thorny skates (Dolgov et al., 2005b) because rough bottom areas are not as efficiently surveyed with trawl gear.

    The utility of trawl survey data to provide information on the thorny skate is thus limited in two ways: By location, missing an unknown portion of the species' preferred habitat; and by catch efficiency, underestimating the number of skates in surveyed areas. Trawl survey data, therefore, are an index and represent a minimum estimate of overall thorny skate abundance. Trends are still evident from these data but should be viewed with the sampling caveats described above, given the lack of information collected beyond the survey areas and the unknown proportion of individuals in un-trawlable habitat (see Davies and Jonsen 2011).

    United States Waters Northeast Fisheries Science Center Surveys

    In U.S. waters, the relative abundance of the thorny skate is measured via NEFSC bottom trawl surveys. The NEFSC trawl survey has been conducted in the autumn from the Gulf of Maine to Southern New England since 1963 as a method of measuring abundance of groundfish for fishery management purposes. A spring survey was started in 1968. The autumn surveys provide a longer time series and are used for stock assessment purposes.

    Numbers and catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; abundance or biomass per tow) of thorny skates caught by this survey have declined over time. After reaching a peak during the 1970s with 5.3 kilogram (kg) per tow (2.9 fish per tow) during the spring survey and 5.9 kg per tow (1.8 fish per tow) in the autumn survey, catch has declined to less than five percent of these maximum levels, with the average current CPUE from 2013-2015 being 0.17 kg/tow (Sosebee et al., in prep). Average length decreased from a high of 63 cm in 1971 to a low of 23 cm in 2003, but has been stable from 2014-2015 at 40-50 cm. From 1963 to 2015, minimum swept-area abundance and biomass estimates decreased from a high of 10.9 million individuals and 36,393 metric tons (mt) in the 1966 autumn survey to a low of 518,900 individuals (mean length = 19 cm) and 365 mt in autumn 2012 and 485,000 individuals (mean length = 30 cm) and 499 mt in autumn 2013. Spring survey numbers have followed a similar trend. Despite the decline from 1970s levels, recent data demonstrate increased capture. Survey estimates from 2014-2015 have increased from previous lows, with estimates of 865,000 individuals and 1,264 mt in spring 2015 and 628,000 individuals and 844 mt in autumn 2015.

    It is important to note that the low efficiency of the gear in capturing skate for these surveys (as described above) indicates minimum abundance and biomass in the survey area, and true abundance and biomass are higher than numbers reflect. Historical survey efforts also likely underestimated thorny skate abundance and biomass. Edwards (1968) estimates the catch efficiency of thorny skates in the NEFSC trawl survey at 0.1. Using this value, the 2015 autumn survey represents an estimated 8,440 mt and 6 million fish within U.S. waters surveyed by NEFSC (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    State Surveys

    Additional surveys in shallow water show similar patterns regarding trends of thorny skate biomass and abundance, or fluctuations without trend. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) surveys inshore state waters in spring and autumn. Catch of thorny skates is variable in this survey (1978 to 2015) but demonstrates an overall decreasing trend in thorny skate biomass and abundance. The spring index had stabilized around the median of 0.07 kg/tow throughout the 2000s, but has since declined, and none were caught in 2013. The autumn index has generally been below the median of 0.14 kg/tow since 1994. Average length of fish in this survey is variable but tends toward smaller fish (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    The Maine-New Hampshire Inshore Trawl Survey was established in 2000. This survey is stratified by depth and demonstrates low abundance of thorny skates in the inshore area with little trend over the time series (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission shrimp survey samples deeper offshore waters within the Gulf of Maine. A decreasing trend is evident here in both abundance and biomass of skate for the duration of the time series (1985-2015); however, recent survey results show stable biomass estimates from 2009-2015. Although average length has varied considerably over the time series (1985-2015), in general it shows a stable trend (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    Overall, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys indicate that thorny skates are most abundant in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank offshore strata regions, with very few fish caught in inshore (<27 m depth), Southern New England, or MA regions (NEFSC 2007, Sosebee et al., in prep). More recent surveys (2007-2009) show a broadening of thorny skate distribution into deeper water but also a concentration in the western Gulf of Maine (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    Canadian Waters

    Where data are available, a decrease in abundance has been observed since the 1970s in Canadian waters; however, recent data indicate an increasing or stable trend in Canadian waters. The thorny skate is widely distributed and is the most common skate species in Canadian waters. The amount of decrease varies widely between different regions, varying from 30 percent on the Southern Labrador Shelf to more than 80 percent on the Scotian Shelf between 1977 and 2010 (COSEWIC 2012). Over the same time period, the average individual weight of commercially targeted demersal fish on the Scotian Shelf declined from 41-51 percent with the larger decline being on the eastern portion of the shelf (Zwanenburg 2000). Most Canadian areas saw a decline in abundance of thorny skates between 50-60 percent during this time period (COSEWIC 2012).

    From 1990 to 2011, survey abundance has been mostly stable on the Southern Labrador Shelf and Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, and has increased 61 percent on the Grand Banks (COSEWIC 2012). More recent information is available for the Grand Banks region, where a fishery persists for skates. Biomass in some Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) subdivisions has been increasing, but overall abundance and biomass remains at low levels, averaging 33,500 tons (t) (30,391 mt) from 1993 to 2012 (DFO 2013). Biomass of thorny skates overall on the Grand Banks has been stable since 2006 (Simpson et al., 2016, Nogueira et al., 2015).

    Overall declines in abundance have been higher for larger thorny skates (COSEWIC 2012). In Canadian waters around Newfoundland, mortality for the smallest thorny skates has declined since the 1970s, while mortality has increased for older juveniles and adults in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Swain et al., 2013). Fishing effort in the area has declined over the same period; suggesting natural mortality factors (not attributable to fishing) are responsible for this change in mortality rates. On the Grand Banks, average length has increased since the 1990s (Nogueira et al., 2015). Recruitment rate has also increased in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence since the 1970s (Benoit and Swain 2011).

    Despite the overall downward trend in abundance of thorny skates within Canadian waters throughout the entire time series, recent (mid to late 1990s to 2012) trends for abundance, biomass, average length, and recruitment rate have been stable and increasing and thorny skates remain numerous. Estimated minimum abundance for Canada in 2010 was more than 188 million individuals, with recent increases in abundance of 61 percent on the Grand Banks (COSEWIC 2012). The true number is likely much higher because of the limitations of sampling gear and sampling locations and depth (as discussed above). Approximately 30-40 percent of the species' range lies within Canadian waters (COSEWIC 2012).

    Northeast Atlantic

    The thorny skate is widely distributed and is the most common skate species in the Northeast Atlantic. Within the Barents Sea, the population abundance was estimated to average 143 million fish and the biomass 95,000 mt during the period 1998 through 2001 (Dolgov et al., 2005a). In Norway, their numbers fluctuated without trend between 1992 and 2005. They remain the most widely occurring skate species with a mean catch rate in Norwegian waters of 55.2 per km2 (Williams et al., 2008). While not directly comparable given differences in tow length and capture efficiency of different gears, this is relatively high when compared to capture rates in Canada and the United States. In Iceland and East Greenland, population estimates are not available, but abundance in groundfish surveys has remained stable since 2000. Area occupied has likewise remained stable, averaging 50 percent from 2000-2014 (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 2015).

    In the North Sea off the coast of Scotland, thorny skates comprise eighty percent of the total skate biomass (Walker and Heeseen 1996; Piet et al., 2009). Biomass was estimated to be greater than 100,000 t (90,718 mt) during the early 1980s (Sparholt and Vinther 1991). Abundance of thorny skates in the area increased greatly when comparing the 1906-1909 and 1990-1995 time periods, despite the overall decrease in landings of skates and rays in this region over the same time period (Walker and Hislop 1998). Abundance decreased (1977-2015) but is comparable to the abundances observed during the early 1970s (ICES 2015). Recent abundance estimates of thorny skates in the Northeast Atlantic have been stable (ICES 2015).

    Area Occupied in the Northwest Atlantic

    Some evidence suggests a contraction of the thorny skate's range over time. In Canadian waters, area occupied has remained stable through much of the species' range. Populations off Labrador, north of Newfoundland and on the St. Pierre Bank have all remained stable. Areas south of Newfoundland and St. Pierre Bank have experienced a decline in area occupied. On the Grand Banks, area occupied has decreased approximately 50 percent from a high of almost 60,000 km2 to approximately 30,000 km2 in 2010 (COSEWIC 2012). It appears fish in this area have been avoiding colder waters present on the top of the Bank, instead moving towards the warmer edge (Kulka and Miri 2003). In the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the area occupied has decreased from about 55,000 km2 in the mid-1970s to approximately 20,000 km2 in 2010. Meanwhile, within the Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, the area occupied has doubled from 42,300 km2 from 1991-1993 to 90,400 km2 from 2008-2010 (COSEWIC 2012). This supports the conclusion that the range of the thorny skate is shifting within the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

    On the Scotian Shelf, area occupancy has declined steadily over the time series, by 58 percent since 1970-1972, and 66 percent since 1974-1976 (when it occupied 150,000 km2). The decline ceased in 2000, and skate in this area now occupy approximately 50,000 km2. There is a strong correlation in this location between area occupied and abundance (Shackell et al., 2005), indicating that remaining skates are using the most suitable habitat. Thorny skate occupancy has also declined on the Canadian side of Georges Bank by about 40 percent. Overall, area occupied for all areas surveyed off Canada (averages for 2007-2009) is approximately 290,000 km2, about 90,000 km2 less than in the 1970s. Most of the decline occurred prior to 1991 with the largest decrease on the Scotian Shelf (COSEWIC 2012).

    Within the United States, NEFSC bottom trawl surveys show an approximately 75 percent decrease in number of total tows containing skate from 1965 to 2008. There is an upward trend in the number of positive tows since 2008. There are several distribution indicators of possible contractions or expansions in distribution, such as positive tows, the Gini index (a measure indicating deviation from equal spatial distribution), and design-weighted area of occupancy, which takes into account the area swept by the tows and the proportion of positive tows. Multiple estimates of biomass and abundance versus area also show a moderate increase in concentration of fish (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    An example of this is the design-weighted area of occupancy from the spring and fall NEFSC surveys, which incorporate a stratified random survey design (Kulka 2012). This index takes into account the area swept by the tows and the proportion of positive tows (Swain et al., 2012). The calculation is the proportion of positive tows within a stratum multiplied by the area of that stratum and summed over the stock area. For the thorny skate, the design-weighted area of occupancy declined over time, from a high of almost 85,800 km2 in the mid-1970s to 14,000-17,000 km2 in 2008. Area occupied has increased recently, but concentrations of thorny skates remain within the Gulf of Maine (Sosebee et al., in prep).

    Abundance of the thorny skate has declined since the highs of the 1970s. The areas of greatest decline have been along the southern portion of their range, including U.S. waters and Canadian waters of the Scotian shelf. Abundance has declined by up to 80 or 95 percent in these areas (COSEWIC 2012), although recent surveys show the number of thorny skates in these areas are stable or slightly increasing (Sosebee et al., in prep; COSEWIC 2012). In more northern parts of the range, decline in abundance has been closer to 60 percent on average and recent surveys show the number of thorny skates in these areas is increasing or stable (ICES 2015).

    Biomass has also decreased, in part due to decreased abundance but also due to high average adult mortality. Recent biomass estimates indicate stabilization (at low levels) or increasing trends in some regions (COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep). Thorny skates remain numerous throughout the greater portion of their range, numbering in the hundreds of millions (COSEWIC 2012). Due to low catchability, the species may be even more numerous than estimates predict. Area occupied has declined by approximately half since the 1970s; however, some expansion of area occupied has been observed recently and current estimates have demonstrated an upward trend in recent years (COSEWIC 2012; ICES 2015).

    Distinct Population Segment Analysis

    As described above, the ESA's definition of “species” includes “any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” The term “distinct population segment” is not recognized in the scientific literature and is not defined in the ESA or its implementing regulations. Therefore, the Services adopted a joint policy for recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722) on February 7, 1996. Congress has instructed the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce to exercise this authority with regard to DPSs “ * * * . . . sparingly and only when biological evidence indicates such an action is warranted.” The DPS Policy requires the consideration of two elements when evaluating whether a vertebrate population segment qualifies as a DPS under the ESA: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species or subspecies to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species or subspecies to which it belongs.

    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be discrete if it satisfies either one of the following conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same taxon (an organism or group of organisms) as a result of physical, ecological, or behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation; or (2) it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA (e.g., inadequate regulatory mechanisms). If a population segment is found to be discrete under one or both of the above conditions, its biological and ecological significance to the taxon to which it belongs is evaluated. This consideration may include, but is not limited to: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon; (3) evidence that the discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historical range; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly from other population segments of the species in its genetic characteristics.

    The petition from AWI and DW requested that we list a “Northwest Atlantic DPS” of the thorny skate as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or, as an alternative, a “United States DPS” as threatened or endangered under the ESA.

    In May 2016, we convened an ERA workshop with thorny skate experts. The workshop participants provided individual expert opinions regarding the available information to assess whether there are any thorny skate population segments that satisfy the DPS criteria of both discreteness and significance. Data relevant to the discreteness question included physical, ecological, behavioral, tagging, and genetic data. As described above, the thorny skate is widely distributed across the Northern Atlantic, without any significant known gaps or barriers in the species range (COSEWIC 2012) or between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic. Likewise, populations are considered contiguous between the United States and Canada.

    Conventional tagging data suggest that individual movement is limited (Templeman 1984; Walker et al., 1997); however, tagging studies to date have been small and relied upon recapture of individuals by fishing operations. There is a lack of information regarding species' movements in deeper water. However, the long distance movements of some tagged individuals (hundreds of kilometers) suggest that occasional long distance movements by some individuals may be sufficient to promote reproductive mixing across the species' range (Templeman 1984; Chevolot et al., 2007). Connectivity between areas is also supported by high areas of genetic diversity in the center of the range (Lynghammar et al., 2014). There are no physical barriers to thorny skate migration, and migratory pathways appear to be present between all ocean basins (i.e., connected areas of appropriate habitat). Collectively, this information indicates that thorny skates are one contiguous population.

    As highlighted in the DPS Policy, quantitative measures of morphological discontinuity or differentiation can serve as evidence of marked separation of populations. No genetic difference was detected between thorny skates caught within Canadian versus U.S. waters (Tsang et al., 2008). Best available genetic information (Lynghammar et al., 2014) suggests a significant amount of genetic diversity between populations in the Northwest and Northeast extremes; however, no significant difference is found when individuals from the center of the range are included, which indicates genetic mixing is occurring in the center of the range (Lynghammar et al., 2014). The center of the species' range around Iceland and Greenland contains the highest amount of genetic diversity, with the edges of the species' range in the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic both having lower levels of diversity. We do not know if the diversity is in neutral genetic markers or is indicative of adaptation. It should be noted that Lynghammar et al. (2014) was not specifically targeting thorny skates; therefore, improved sampling for thorny skates is suggested for future research. However, this study represents the best available scientific information on thorny skate genetics.

    In summary, current information indicates thorny skates in the North Atlantic comprise a single species, despite the differences in age and length at maturity. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic, but the center of the range bridges genetic diversity between these two areas, indicating that there is mixing and gene flow across the range. This is likely made possible by the continuous distribution and depth range of the species, as there are no known physical barriers to migration. Morphological differences in thorny skate populations are limited to body size and age at maturity. Comparisons of individuals of different sizes from two sites in the Gulf of Maine and two sites in Canadian waters found no significant genetic differences (Tsang et al., 2008). Comparison of “late maturing” skates collected mostly north of Newfoundland and “early maturing” skates collected within Canadian waters south of Newfoundland also found no significant genetic differences (Lynghammar et al., 2014).

    Thorny skates are habitat generalists. None of the populations appear to occur in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon. Thorny skates are well distributed throughout the Atlantic; there is no population that represents the only surviving natural occurrence of the taxon. Thorny skates do not exist as an introduced population outside their historical range.

    A population can be determined to be discrete if it is delimited by international governmental boundaries within which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the ESA. A directed fishery for thorny skates is permitted in the central portion of the species' range comprising the area of the Grand Banks in Canadian waters, as well as Iceland and Greenland. Landings of thorny skates are prohibited in the extreme western (U.S.) and eastern (U.K. eastward) portions of the species' range. In most shallow water areas across the species' range, thorny skates undergo some form of fishing mortality because they are a common bycatch species. There are some differences in management in the Northwestern Atlantic (by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) and the Northeastern Atlantic (by ICES). In 2004, the NAFO Fisheries Commission set a total allowable catch (TAC) of 13,500 mt for 2005-2009 in Division 3 LNO. This TAC was lowered by NAFO to 12,000 mt for 2010-2011, and to 8,500 mt for 2012. The TAC was further reduced to 7,000 mt for 2013, 2014, 2015 (Simpson et al., 2016). In the Northeastern Atlantic there is a prohibition against landing thorny skates from European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). A very small fishery exists in Iceland and off East Greenland, where survey numbers have remained stable since 2000 (ICES 2015). With populations within the Northeast Atlantic currently considered stable (ICES 2015), existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality within this region. Iceland reported 1,625 mt of thorny skate landings in 2014. A 2016 EU regulation prohibits thorny skate landing for EU waters of ICES divisions IIa, IIIa and VIId and ICES subarea IV Subareas II and IV and Division IIIa (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), based on ICES advice that a precautionary approach dictates no targeted fishing and measures to reduce bycatch. ICES advice for this species west of the UK is currently pending.

    Within U.S. waters, thorny skates are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). Landings of thorny skates within U.S. waters were unregulated until 2003 when the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) established a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the skate complex. In 2003, the stock was deemed “overfished” and a landing prohibition was put in place, requiring all catch of thorny skates to be discarded at sea. Compliance with the prohibition against landing thorny and other skates is examined via port sampling. While thorny skates are still considered overfished within the United States, overfishing is no longer occurring (NEFMC 2009), indicating that fishery management measures are successfully controlling fishing mortality in those waters.

    Under the Fisheries Act, Canadian fisheries may take thorny skates as bycatch in other fisheries, and a small directed fishery still operates on the Grand Banks. Available information suggests that catch is well below the total allowable catch limits as set by NAFO and Canada, indicating fishing mortality is controlled (Simpson et al., 2016). The Scotian shelf has been closed to directed fishery for skates (thorny and winter) since the early 2000s. In addition to compliance with catch limits, thorny skate abundance has been stable on the Grand Banks and the rest of Canada, yet still below historical levels (COSEWIC 2012). Therefore, existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality.

    Throughout its range, thorny skates cross international governmental boundaries. There are regulatory mechanisms in place across the species' range with respect to conserving and recovering the thorny skate. While there are regulatory differences in different parts of its range, when evaluated as described further below in the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms section, these regulatory mechanisms are adequate and the effects on thorny skates are similar. These mechanisms include regulating directed catch and bycatch, and result in effective management of the harvest of thorny skates throughout their range.

    In summary, thorny skates rangewide exhibit genetic continuity between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic through a high degree of diversity in the center of their range, a lack of significant differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms across international borders. We have determined that neither thorny skates in the United States nor thorny skates in the Northwest Atlantic are discrete from thorny skates throughout the rest of the North Atlantic.

    The workshop participants provided their individual expert opinions regarding the best available information related to the discreteness criterion for thorny skates. Upon our review of their individual analyses and the DPS policy, we have concluded that there are no populations of the thorny skate that are discrete. Because we do not find any populations that are discrete, we do not go on to the second element of the DPS criteria (significance). Therefore, none of the segments suggested by the petitioners (i.e., Northwest Atlantic or United States) qualifies as a DPS. Because there are no DPSs of the thorny skate, the workshop participants next provided their individual expert opinions regarding extinction risk rangewide for the thorny skate.

    Assessment of Extinction Risk

    The ESA (section 3) defines endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is “any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” We consider the best available information and apply professional judgment in evaluating the level of risk faced by a species in deciding whether the species is currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered) or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (threatened). We evaluate both demographic risks, such as low abundance and productivity, and threats to the species, including those related to the factors specified by the ESA sections 4(a)(1)(A)-(E).

    Methods

    As described above, we convened a workshop of invited experts to provide individual input regarding extinction risk to the species. This section discusses the methods used to evaluate demographic factors, threats, and overall extinction risk to the species now and in the foreseeable future. For this assessment, the term “foreseeable future” was defined as 40 years. The workshop participants reviewed other comparable assessments (which used generation times of either one or two generations) and provided their expert opinions on the appropriate timeframe for the thorny skate. Each of the workshop participants considered thorny skate generation time (16 years), the ability to predict population trends, climate-modeling predictions, and the time for management actions to be realized and reflected in abundance trends when considering a foreseeable future timeline. The individual workshop participants determined that, for the thorny skate, there was reasonable confidence across this time-period (40 years) that the information on threats and management is accurate. We agree that, because of the factors listed above, this is a reasonable definition of “foreseeable future” for the thorny skate, and we use the same definition here.

    Often the ability to measure or document risk factors is limited, and information is not quantitative or very often is lacking altogether. Therefore, in assessing risk, it is important to include both qualitative and quantitative information. In previous NMFS status reviews, Biological Review Teams have used a risk matrix method, described in detail by Wainwright and Kope (1999), to organize and summarize the professional judgement of a panel of knowledgeable scientists. The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the consideration of extinction risk has been used in many of our status reviews (see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species for links to these reviews). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level according to four demographic viability factors: Abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity. Connectivity refers to rates of exchange among populations of organisms. These viability factors reflect concepts that are well founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.

    Using these concepts, the workshop participants each evaluated demographic risks by individually assigning a risk score to each of the four demographic criteria (abundance, growth rate/productivity, spatial structure/connectivity, diversity). The scoring for the demographic risk criteria corresponded to the following values: 1—very low risk, 2—low risk, 3—moderate risk, 4—high risk, and 5—very high risk. A demographic factor (or viable population descriptor) was ranked very low if it was unlikely that this descriptor contributed significantly to risk of extinction, either by itself or in combination with other viable population descriptors. A factor was ranked low risk if it was unlikely that this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but there was some concern that it may, in combination with other viable population descriptors. A factor was ranked moderate risk if this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but did not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. A factor was ranked high risk if this descriptor contributed significantly to long-term risk of extinction and was likely to contribute to short-term risk of extinction in the near future, and a factor was ranked very high risk if this descriptor by itself indicated danger of extinction in the near future.

    Each workshop participant scored each demographic factor individually. Each workshop participant identified other demographic factors and/or threats that would work in combination with factors ranked in the higher categories to increase risk to the species. During the workshop, the participants provided their expert opinions for each of the demographic risks, including considerations outlined in McElhany et al. (2000) and the supporting data on which it was based. Workshop participants were given the opportunity to adjust their individual scores, if desired, after the workshop. The scores were then tallied, reviewed, and considered in our overall extinction risk determination. As noted above, this scoring was carried out for the species rangewide.

    Each workshop participant also performed a threats assessment for the thorny skate by evaluating the impact that a particular threat was currently having on the extinction risk of the species. Threats considered included habitat destruction, modification, or curtailment; overutilization; disease or predation; inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and other natural or manmade threats, because these are the five factors identified in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. Workshop participants each ranked the threats for the thorny skate at a range-wide scale. The workshop participants used the “likelihood point” (FEMAT) method to allow individuals to express uncertainty in determining the contribution to extinction risk of each threat to the species. Each workshop participant was allotted five likelihood points to rank each threat. Workshop participants individually ranked the severity of each threat through the allocation of these five likelihood points across five ranking criteria ranging from a score of “very low contribution” to “very high contribution.” The scoring for the threats correspond to the following values: 1—very low contribution, 2—low contribution, 3—moderate contribution, 4—high contribution, and 5—very high contribution. A threat was given a rank of very low if it is unlikely that this threat contributes significantly to risk of extinction, either by itself or in combination with other threats. That is, it is unlikely that the threat will have population-level impacts that reduce the viability of the species. A threat was ranked as low contribution if it is unlikely that this threat contributes significantly to long-term or near future risk of extinction by itself, but there is some concern that it may, in combination with other threats. A threat was ranked as medium contribution if this threat contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction, but does not in itself constitute a danger of extinction in the near future. A threat was ranked high contribution if this threat contributes significantly to long-term risk of extinction and is likely to contribute to short-term risk of extinction in the near future. Finally, a threat was ranked very high contribution if the threat by itself indicates a danger of extinction in the near future. Detailed definitions of the risk scores can be found in the status review report (NMFS 2017).

    Similar to the demographic parameters, the workshop participants were asked to identify other threat(s) and/or demographic factor(s) that may interact to increase the species' extinction risk. The workshop participants also considered the ranking with respect to the interactions with other factors and threats. For example, workshop participants identified that threats due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may interact with the threat of overutilization and slow population growth rates (a demographic factor) to increase the risk extinction.

    Workshop participants were asked to rank the effect that the threat was currently having on the extinction risk of the species. Each workshop participant could allocate all five likelihood points to one ranking criterion or distribute the likelihood points across several ranking criteria to account for any uncertainty. Each individual workshop participant distributed the likelihood points as she/he deemed appropriate with the condition that all five likelihood points had to be used for each threat. Workshop participants also had the option of ranking the threat as “0” to indicate that, in their opinion, there was insufficient data to assign a score, or “N/A” if in their opinion the threat was not relevant to the species either throughout its range or for individual stock complexes. When a workshop participant chose either N/A (Not Applicable) or 0 (Unknown) for a threat, all five likelihood points had to be assigned to that category only.

    During the group discussion, the workshop participants were asked to identify other threat(s) or demographic factor(s) that were interacting with the threats or demographic factors to increase the species' extinction risk. As scores were provided by individual workshop participants, each individual stated his or her expert opinion regarding each of the threats, and the supporting data on which it was based. We considered these along with the demographic scores in our overall risk assessment.

    The workshop participants were then asked to use their informed professional judgment to individually qualitatively score overall extinction risk for the thorny skate. The results of the demographic risks analysis and threats assessment, described below, informed this ranking. For this analysis, the workshop participants used three levels of extinction risk, consistent with the NMFS (2016) listing guidance: Low risk, moderate risk, and high risk. Low risk was defined as: “A species or DPS is at low risk of extinction if it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see “Moderate risk” and “High risk”). A species or DPS may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species or DPS at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.” Moderate risk was defined as: “A species or DPS is at moderate risk of extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of “High risk”). A species or DPS may be at moderate risk of extinction due to projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. The appropriate time horizon for evaluating whether a species or DPS will be at high risk in the foreseeable future depends on various case- and species-specific factors. For example, the time horizon may reflect certain life history characteristics (e.g., long generation time or late age-at-maturity) and may also reflect the time frame or rate over which identified threats are likely to impact the biological status of the species or DPS (e.g., the rate of disease spread). (The appropriate time horizon is not limited to the period that status can be quantitatively modeled or predicted within predetermined limits of statistical confidence. The biologist (or Team) should, to the extent possible, clearly specify the time horizon over which it has confidence in evaluating moderate risk.).” High Risk was defined as: “A species or DPS with a high risk of extinction is at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species or DPS at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or DPS may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create imminent and substantial demographic risks.”

    The workshop participants adopted the “likelihood point” method for ranking the overall risk of extinction to allow individual workshop participants to express uncertainty. For this approach, each workshop participant distributed 10 `likelihood points' among the extinction risk categories (that is, each workshop participant had 10 points to distribute among the three extinction risk categories). Uncertainty is expressed by assigning points to different risk categories. For example, a workshop participant would assign all 10 points to the `low risk' category if he/she was certain that the definition for `low risk' was met. However, he/she might assign a small number of points to the `moderate risk' category and the majority to the `low risk' category if there was a low level of uncertainty regarding the risk level. The more points assigned to one particular category, the higher the level of certainty. This approach has been used in previous NMFS status reviews (e.g., Pacific salmon, Southern Resident killer whale, Puget Sound rockfish, Pacific herring, black abalone, and common thresher shark) to structure the workshop participant's thinking and express levels of uncertainty when assigning risk categories. Although this process helps to integrate and summarize a large amount of diverse information, there is no simple way to translate the risk matrix scores directly into a determination of overall extinction risk. The workshop participant scores were tallied, discussed, and summarized by NMFS for the thorny skate rangewide.

    The workshop participants did not make recommendations as to whether the species should be listed as threatened or endangered. Rather, the workshop participants drew scientific conclusions about the overall risk of extinction faced by the thorny skate under present conditions and in the foreseeable future (as noted above, defined as 40 years) based on his/her evaluation of the species' demographic risks and assessment of threats.

    Evaluation of Demographic Risks

    Abundance: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available thorny skate abundance information, which is summarized in the Abundance section of the listing determination. Several workshop participants noted that the available information indicated thorny skate abundance had declined significantly from historical levels in certain parts of its range. However, in all regions where abundance trends and/or indicators are available, declines appear to have been halted, and increases in abundance were apparent in some regions. Further declines are unlikely due to improved management. Abundance estimates from the Northwest Atlantic are currently in the millions of individuals, even where significant declines have occurred. There is no evidence of depensatory processes such as reduced likelihood of finding a mate, and recruitment per spawner has remained stable for thorny skate. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

    Growth rate/productivity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate life history traits as they relate to this factor. As summarized in the Reproduction, Growth, and Demography section, thorny skates have low inherent productivity due to their late age at maturity, low fecundity, slow population growth rates, and long generation times (16 years). This low productivity makes thorny skate populations vulnerable to overexploitation, and slow to recover from depletion. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' scores corresponds to a low to moderate ranking rangewide, as this factor is unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

    Spatial structure/connectivity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate spatial structure (tagging and genetics information) summarized in the Population section. The thorny skate has a very broad range, including across the entire North Atlantic Ocean. The species is mobile, and some connectivity across the range is apparent from both tagging and genetics data. At the southern edges, there is an indication that a contraction or northward shift may be occurring; however, recent surveys show an increase in abundance in the southern range in U.S. waters. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is very unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

    Diversity: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on thorny skate diversity summarized in the Population section. The available genetics studies indicate that thorny skate populations have the highest genetic diversity amongst skate species, and there is reproductive connectivity along a continuum rangewide. Therefore, genetic diversity appears to be sufficiently high and not indicative of isolated or depleted populations. The thorny skate does not appear to be at risk due to substantial changes or loss of variation in life history traits, population demography, morphology, behavior, or genetic characteristics. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low to low ranking rangewide, as this factor is very unlikely to contribute significantly to the thorny skate's risk of extinction.

    Evaluation of Threats

    The workshop participants identified several threats in the low to moderate category for contribution to extinction risk, including: Climate change, manmade non-fishing habitat impacts, commercial discards, commercial landings, global and national climate regulation, and inadequacy of existing NAFO regulations. Both climate change and global or national climate change regulations received the most likelihood points in the moderate contribution to extinction risk category. Only one threat, climate change, received likelihood points in the high contribution category, but the majority of points were in the low to moderate category. We summarize the threats to the thorny skate and provide the workshop participants' expert opinions on their degree of contribution to extinction risk.

    Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment: Workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on habitat use and distributions of the thorny skate summarized in the status review report. Overall, the thorny skate is a habitat generalist in the marine environment, and not substantially dependent on any particular habitat type. It occurs in coastal and offshore waters, and is not dependent during any life stage on more vulnerable estuarine habitats. Thorny skate habitat use is influenced by temperature and prey distributions, but they have broad temperature tolerances and an opportunistic diet, making them less vulnerable to habitat destruction.

    Within the Northwest Atlantic, the species' range from Greenland south is a mixing zone for different currents. The Labrador Current flows down the inner shelf, bringing cooler and fresher water from the north, which flows down over the ocean shelves, including the Grand Banks, Scotian Shelf, Georges Bank and into the Gulf of Maine. Meanwhile, the Gulf Stream in deeper offshore waters brings warmer, saltier water up from the south (Saba et al., 2015). The range of the thorny skate covers both of these currents and the mixing zone; thorny skates are able to occur throughout this area due to their tolerance of different temperatures. This mixing zone makes it difficult to predict the impacts of climate change within the area, although recent specific modeling suggests that the Gulf of Maine will warm nearly three times as fast as other areas from a predicted northward shift in the Gulf Stream (Saba et al., 2015). Recently, the Labrador Current has had the opposite effect, decreasing salinity in the shallower parts of the Gulf of Maine and cooling temperatures on the shelves (Townsend et al., 2010). Overall, waters within the range of the thorny skate are expected to get warmer, increase in salinity and decrease in pH (Saba et al., 2015). In marine ecosystems, climate change impacts like these are generally expected to push species distributions northward (Frumhoff et al., 2007), but possible effects on the thorny skate are unclear.

    In U.S. waters, the thorny skate has experienced a relatively high amount of range contraction as measured during NEFSC surveys. A small but statistically significant northward shift in range, and increased concentration in deeper waters has been detected (Nye et al., 2009). A possible explanation of the consistent, long-term decline of thorny skates in the NEFSC trawl survey is skates are shifting out of the survey area. The shift in area occupied on the Grand Banks in Canada may also be a response to climate change. In this area, skates have shifted to the warmer edge of the banks, avoiding the cooler temperatures present on the center of the banks (Kulka and Miri 2003) created by the Labrador Current. The lack of skates present in temperatures below 1 or 2° C supports this conclusion.

    There is no information regarding the impacts of ocean acidification on the thorny skate. However, a study on the sympatric little skate, Leucoraja erinacea, demonstrates that changes in temperature and acidic concentration can result in complex effects on developmental time, body condition and survival in skate hatchlings (Di Santo 2015). There is currently no information available on how hypoxia or changes in nutrient composition might impact the thorny skate. Given its broad range, generalist feeding habits, and ability to move, localized areas of hypoxia or low prey availability are unlikely to have an impact at a species level.

    Since climate change impacts are expected to shift species distributions northward and impact species diversity, recent studies have focused on the impacts of climate change to fish community assemblages, particularly on species richness and diversity. Some impacts have been observed for “coastal” or shallow water communities (<200 m/656 ft in depth) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Tamdrari et al., 2014) and Iceland (Stefansdottir et al., 2010). In both these studies, thorny skates were found to associate more with the deeper water fish assemblages, which had only minor, if any, impacts from climate change.

    There is some evidence that suggests the species is shifting to deeper waters. Thorny skates comprised 7.97 percent of fish in the “coastal” species assemblage (<200m) in the early 1990s and only 5.58 percent on average from 2004-2010 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the deeper species assemblage (>200m) they went from 3.71 percent in the early 1990s to 4.52 percent averaged from 2004-2010 (Tamdrari et al., 2014). This is a relatively small change for both depths when compared to change for other species, representing half as much decrease in the coastal assemblage as redfish (Sebastes spp.) and an order of magnitude less than the decrease in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Additionally, thorny skates were most abundant between 100 and 350 m of depth before climate change became apparent (McEachran and Musick 1975), and this remains the case in modern surveys (Packer et al., 2003; COSEWIC 2012), though depths in the fall range up to 500 m in U.S. waters (Packer et al., 2003).

    Recent climate vulnerability analyses have been performed for fish species in the Northeast United States and for fish assemblages on the Scotian Shelf in Canada. Despite having similar methodologies, these studies came to different conclusions regarding the vulnerability of thorny skates to climate change. Stortini et al. (2015) rated the vulnerability of the thorny skate on the Scotian shelf as “low.” This study scaled the estimated vulnerability relative to thirty-two other species found on the Scotian Shelf; therefore, the “low” vulnerability rating is in relation to other species in that location.

    Hare et al. (2016) rated this species as having a “high” biological sensitivity and climate exposure likelihood off the Northeast United States, on a scale of “low” to “very high.” In this effort, vulnerability was equated to the likelihood of the species experiencing either reduced productivity or shifting its distribution out of the region in response to climate change. This vulnerability analysis concluded that there was also a “high” chance of negative impacts and changes in species distribution within its U.S. range. Both assessments used a similar variety of species life history factors to produce a species sensitivity score, but Hare et al., (2016) used a larger variety of climate factors including pH, salinity, precipitation and ocean currents to determine climate exposure, whereas Stortini et al. (2015) looked only at mean temperature under different warming scenarios.

    While thorny skates in U.S. waters are at high risk for being impacted by climate change (likely to manifest as loss of cold water habitat in U.S. waters), the best available information indicates that throughout most of the range, the generalist habitat requirements of the thorny skate will limit impacts of climate change. This conclusion is supported by studies on species diversity that indicate impacts to species assemblages have not yet occurred on communities including the thorny skate, due to its depth preferences (Stefansdottir et al., 2010, Tamdarai et al., 2015). In addition, modeling predicts a less than 10 percent loss of thermally appropriate habitat before 2030 in U.S. waters, but almost no habitat loss before 2030 in Canadian waters (Shackell et al., 2014). A ten percent loss is expected in Canada and up to 25 percent loss in U.S. waters may occur before 2060 (Shackell et al., 2014). Although the risk may be high that thorny skates will shift their distribution out of Northeast U.S. waters due to warming ocean conditions (Hare et al., 2016), the species would have the ability to persist in adjacent regions with more suitable habitat.

    Ocean temperature changes due to climate change may be contributing to a contraction of the thorny skate's range at its southern edges. Thorny skates appear to have comparatively low exposure to potentially harmful pollutants, and there is no information suggesting their individual fitness or populations are threatened by pollution. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that climate change and non-fishing related modifications to habitat (e.g. drilling, offshore windfarm construction) present a low to moderate contribution to extinction risk.

    Overutilization: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on fishing mortality and abundance trends of thorny skate summarized in the status review report. Overutilization for commercial purposes was once considered one of the primary threats to thorny skate populations. Significant declines have been documented throughout much of the thorny skate's range due to historical fishing pressure. The most recent information suggests that declines in several stocks have halted due to fishing restrictions (COSEWIC 2012; ICES 2015; Sosebee et al., in prep). Populations appear to be stable or slowly increasing, with millions of individuals remaining in the Northwest Atlantic alone. Therefore, there appears to be a low likelihood of further population declines because of stabilization observed after management actions were put into place. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores corresponds to a very low or low ranking for all threats in this category, with the commercial landings and commercial discards receiving mean scores of slightly higher than low contributions to overall extinction risk.

    Thorny skates were and are taken as bycatch by fisheries throughout their range, including those in the North Sea, Barents Sea, Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Canadian and U.S. continental shelves. Targeted fisheries, particularly by foreign fleets including those of Spain, Portugal and Russia, developed in the 1990s (COSEWIC 2012; Sosebee et al., in prep). The fishery for thorny skates was largely unregulated in the Northwest Atlantic until the 2000s (COSEWIC 2012). Currently, small fisheries exist in the North Sea (Piet et al., 2009) and on the Grand Banks in Canada (Simpson et al., 2016), which is, as mentioned earlier, the first regulated skate fishery in international waters. Since 2003, U.S. vessels have been prohibited from possessing or landing thorny skates (NEFMC 2009). While directed fisheries on the species are currently limited, thorny skates continue to be taken as bycatch and discarded in commercial fisheries within their range.

    U.S. Fisheries Catch and Bycatch

    Total landings for all skate species within U.S. waters reached 9,462 mt in 1969 and declined after that, reaching a low of 847 mt in 1981 (Sosebee et al., in prep). Skate landings increased substantially after that time period for lobster bait and export, rising to a high of 20,342 mt in 2007 (Sosebee et al., in prep). Estimated total catch of thorny skates has declined from over 5,000 mt in the late 1960s and early 1970s to about 200-300 mt in recent years (Sosebee et al., in prep). Thorny skates make up a small overall portion of skate catch, particularly in comparison to winter and little skates. Most of the early catch (1969-1989) was from otter trawl discards, while landings dominated from 1990 to present (Sosebee et at., in prep). Discards from scallop dredges increased in proportion to population estimates during the late 1970s and again during the late 1990s (Sosebee et al., in prep). While landings were generally low, catch of thorny skates likely contributed to the decline of the species over time.

    In 2003, the NEFMC implemented a FMP for the seven skates present within the Gulf of Maine. The FMP prohibited landings of thorny skates as the stock status was considered overfished (NEFMC 2009). The limited information regarding species biomass required the NEFSC to develop survey-based overfished and overfishing reference points for the thorny skate: “Thorny skate is in an overfished condition when the three-year moving average of the autumn survey mean weight-per-tow is less than one half of the 75th percentile of the mean weight-per-tow observed in the autumn trawl survey from the selected reference time series. Overfishing occurs when the three year moving average of the autumn survey mean weight per tow declines 20% or more, or when the autumn survey mean weight per tow declines for three consecutive years. The reference points and selected time series may be re-specified through a peer reviewed process and/or as updated stock assessments are completed (NEFMC 2009). The target biomass for thorny skates is currently set at 4.13 kg/tow and the minimum biomass threshold at 2.06 kg/tow. The most recent 3-year average remains below these figures at 0.17 kg/tow; however, this figure has remained steady since 2011.

    The MSA states: “A stock or stock complex is considered “overfished” when its biomass has declined below a level that jeopardizes the capacity of the stock or stock complex to produce Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) on a continuing basis. MSY is defined as the largest long-term average catch or yield that can be taken from a stock or stock complex.” The overfished/overfishing status of a stock is determined relative to its ability to produce continued yield from a fishery. The overfished status of thorny skates within the United States means that fishing mortality rates (including past landings and discards) have been too high, and caused the population to decline below acceptable levels. The stock must be rebuilt to biomass levels that can produce MSY for a fishery to be sustainable. The prohibition on harvest in U.S. waters is expected to help the stock rebuild. This means any thorny skates caught within U.S. waters must be discarded at sea.

    Estimated thorny skate discards are low relative to other skates (Sosebee et al., in prep). Landings and dead discards have decreased in recent years (2007-2014) and total discards have stabilized or increased.

    Canadian Fisheries and Bycatch

    Thorny skates comprise the majority of skates caught in commercial fisheries in Canada. The majority of thorny skate catch comes from the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland, including the Grand Banks area. This has ranged from a high of approximately 24,000 mt in the early 1990s to current levels around 6,000 mt. Relative fishing mortality has remained stable (1985- 2009) in this area at approximately ten percent (COSEWIC 2012).

    Within the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, estimated landings of thorny skates peaked in 1994 at approximately 38 t, and have since decreased to an average 1-2.7 t over the period 2006-2011(Benoit 2013). The thorny skate is the most common discarded skate species. On average, 490 t were discarded in the early 1990s, this dropped to 53.7 t on average over the period 2006 -2011 (Benoit 2013). While the majority of discards in the past came from trawl fisheries, currently half are from trawl and half from the gillnet fishery for Greenland halibut (Benoit 2013). Overall fishing effort in this area has declined or remained stable since the 1990s (COSEWIC 2012).

    The only remaining directed fishery for the thorny skate is executed within the Grand Banks Area. This area is managed between two areas, 3Ps directly south of Newfoundland and entirely within the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and divisions 3LNO, which comprise the outer banks, some of which lies outside the Canadian EEZ. Quota regulation within the EEZ was enacted in 1995 (Simpson et al., 2014). In 2004, NAFO enacted quota regulation for the entire 3LNO area, making this the first regulated skate fishery in the world in international waters. The regulated areas include areas within and outside the Canadian EEZ; 3Ps remained under Canada's quota system. For most years since the quotas were enacted, catch has remained well below the limits. Relative fishing mortality within the Grand Banks has decreased over time. Within the 3LNO it increased from the late 1980s to a peak of 29 percent in 1997; then stabilized at approximately 17 percent during 1998-2004 (Simpson et al., 2016). In 2005, relative fishing mortality declined to 4 percent and has remained around 5 percent (Simpson et al., 2016). Since 1985, fishing mortality within 3Ps was relatively constant, below 5 percent for most years (Simpson et al., 2016).

    Northeast Atlantic Fisheries and Bycatch

    There is little directed fishing effort on thorny skates across most of the Northeast Atlantic, with a prohibition against landings currently in place in European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). There is a small fishery landing thorny skates from Iceland and Greenland. Landings here have increased but still remain below 2,000 mt, or about half that of Canada's yearly landings.

    The available information indicates that current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and that area occupied is increasing. While the portion of the population within the United States is not currently capable of sustaining a fishery, fisheries for thorny skates are well-controlled throughout the range. Fishing mortality relative to biomass has decreased across the range through time, and is currently rather low in most areas. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that commercial landings across the range of the species present a low contribution to extinction risk.

    We have also considered the best available information on the mortality rates of thorny skates that are discarded (i.e., returned to the water alive after capture in fishing gear). Factors that impact thorny skate discard survival in trawl fisheries include size, depth of capture, difference in temperature between bottom and surface conditions (Benoit et al., 2013), duration of the tow and degree of injury sustained during the capture event (Mandelman et al., 2013). Skates can have an overall high survival rate following discard, with up to 20 percent mortality predicted for trawl fisheries within the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Benoit, 2013). Mandelman et al. (2013) studied the post-discard mortality of thorny skates captured in trawl gear in the Gulf of Maine. This study indicates that while 72-hour post-discard mortality of a sample of individuals retained in captivity following cage trials was only 22 percent, the condition of many of the individual thorny skates was poor (52 percent injury rate at time of capture; most with listless appearance and lack of vigor at the end of the 72-hour period) and 7-day mortality was 66 percent. The authors note that the species may be less resilient than indicated by the 22 percent 72-hour mortality rate and cautions against the use of the 22 percent mortality rate in management. The effects of captivity on these mortality rates are unknown; however, it is reasonable to expect that captivity contributed to slightly higher mortality rates. The available information indicates a low to moderate risk of mortality to a thorny skate once it is captured (Benoit et al., 2013 and Mandelman et al., 2013). The elimination of most directed fisheries and reductions in catches are expected to reduce overall fishing mortality, including discard mortality. It is also important to note that post-discard mortality is considered in developing fishing management policies for the thorny skate in the United States. Current management measures consider the available information on post-discard mortality. While overutilization had been a primary threat to the species, fishing mortality is being managed throughout the species' range. The available information indicates that current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and that area occupied is increasing. While the portion of the population within the United States is not currently capable of sustaining a fishery, fisheries for thorny skates are well-controlled throughout the range. Fishing mortality relative to biomass has decreased across the range through time, and is currently low in most areas. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that commercial discards across the range of the species represent a low contribution to overall extinction risk.

    Disease and Predation: Workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on disease and predation of thorny skates summarized in the status review report. Overall, there is minimal information available with which to evaluate these threats. In general, thorny skates may be susceptible to diseases, but there is no evidence that disease has ever caused declines in populations. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that disease represents a very low contribution to overall extinction risk, as it is very unlikely that this threat contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species.

    Regarding predation, there is no indication that this species would be threatened by excessive predation pressure. Egg capsules for the species are reportedly preyed upon by halibut, Greenland shark and goosefish (Collette and Klein-MacPhee 2002). Gastropods may also predate on egg cases, with a predicted predation frequency ranging from 4 to 18 percent (Cox et al., 1999). It is unknown what the effect of this predation may be, but it could contribute to a slower rate of rebuilding.

    Skates, including thorny skates, are prey for a number of species: Flounder, other skates, seabirds, marine mammals, sharks, cod and other large demersal fishes, with the last being the most important (Morissette et al., 2006). Overall mortality for small skates has decreased while increasing for larger skates since the 1970s. Currently, recruitment for smaller skates remains high in portions of the Canadian range (Benoit and Swain 2011; Swain et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the numbers of large fishes have decreased. Fishing pressure has also decreased, substantially in some regions, indicating sources of adult skate mortality may be natural. Marine mammal predation, particularly by gray seals, has been suggested as an increasing cause of mortality for some locations (Swain et al., 2013).

    Thorny skates are at least a minor source of prey for gray seals, composing up to 6 percent of their diet depending on age and season (Beck et al., 2007). Gray seal energy requirements are high enough that this predator may be responsible for much of the natural mortality of adult thorny skates in some areas, despite the thorny skate being a minor prey source (Swain et al., 2013, Benoit et al., 2011). Energetics modeling has been found to explain a similar pattern of increased adult mortality in other local species (Benoit et al., 2011). Further modeling work found a negative relationship between the gray seal index and thorny skate numbers in the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. The harp seal index was more likely to explain population trends in the Northwest portion of the Gulf. Predation by either species was not found to explain trends in thorny skate within the northeast portion of the Gulf (Ouellet et al., 2016).

    Predation by gray seals may have increased within the range of the thorny skate. Gray seal populations have recovered during the same time period of decreasing mortality for small thorny skates. Numbering only 15,000 individuals in the 1960s, the gray seal population increased to 350,000 by 2007. In 2014, the population estimate within the Canadian range and Gulf of Maine had increased to 505,000 (Hamill et al. 2014). In addition, gray seals have been expanding their range and are now present in small numbers as far south as Southern New England (DiGiovanni Jr. et al., 2016).

    Gray seals stay mostly local (within 50 km) to haul-out sites and forage in mostly shallow depths (~100 m) (McConnell et al., 1999, Schreer et al., 2001). The largest numbers of gray seals are found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on Sable Island off the coast of Nova Scotia, where they may impact skates on the Scotian Shelf. Smaller populations are found in coastal Nova Scotia, Seal Island, Maine and on Cape Cod, Massachusetts (Hamill et al., 2014). If gray seal predation is contributing to thorny skate mortality, the impact is likely to be concentrated in the shallowest portions of the thorny skate range around major gray seal population areas.

    Harp seals migrate to the Gulf of St. Lawrence to whelp before returning to Artic waters on the overlapping range of thorny skate. They migrate along the coast of Labrador and Greenland northward. Small numbers of harp seals may remain year-round in southern waters, with the majority living in the Artic. Currently there is no evidence that thorny skates comprise more than an incidental portion of the harp seal diet. Harp seal reproductive rates decreased in the latest assessment, with 8.3 million individuals estimated in 2008 and 7.7 million estimated in 2012 (DFO 2012). Harp seal predation on thorny skates is likely stable or slightly decreasing and centered around whelping sites.

    Modeling indicates marine mammal predation may contribute to high natural mortality of adult thorny skates in some discrete areas, suppressing recovery of their populations (DFO 2012). For now, high levels of recruitment in small skates are still evident despite this pressure. Recent abundance of thorny skates has also been stable in areas where marine mammal populations are centered. The recent population increase of gray seals in U.S. waters and coinciding stabilization of thorny skate abundance indices suggests that seal predation was not likely responsible for thorny skate declines. The mean score we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicates that predation represents a very low contribution to extinction risk, as it is very unlikely that this threat contributes or will contribute to the decline of the species.

    Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms: The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on fisheries management regulations and abundance trends of the thorny skate summarized in the status review report. The inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms to control the harvest of thorny skates was once considered a significant threat to their populations. Legal protections for thorny skates vary between outright prohibitions on landings in the United States and much of the Northeast Atlantic, with limited fishing permitted in Canada and Iceland.

    U.S. Regulations

    Within U.S. waters, thorny skates are managed under the MSA. Landings of thorny skates within U.S. waters were unregulated until 2003 when the NEFMC established an FMP for the skate complex. At that time, the stock was deemed “overfished” and a landing prohibition was put in place, requiring all catch of thorny skates to be discarded at sea. At that time, the same prohibitions were put into place for the sympatric species, barndoor and smooth skates, to help rebuild these stocks. The skate complex FMP does still allow catch of other skate species, and other fisheries may also catch thorny skates but are likewise required to discard them.

    MSA regulations are enforced in U.S. waters by the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement and state partners. Fishermen who do not comply with regulations established under the MSA are subject to fines and criminal penalties, depending on the severity of the offense. Compliance with the prohibition against landing thorny and other skates was examined via port sampling. In 2005, 3.61 percent of skate wing landings were identified as thorny skate. In the years since, this declined rapidly with less than 1 percent of wings identified as thorny skate in 2007, and further declined to 0.01 percent in 2012, indicating that compliance with the discard regulations and misidentifications or mislabeling is not an issue in the United States (Curtis and Sosebee 2015). While the thorny skate is still considered overfished within the United States, overfishing is no longer occurring (NEFMC 2009), indicating that fishery management measures are successfully controlling fishing mortality in those waters.

    Canadian Regulations

    Under the Fisheries Act, Canadian fisheries may take thorny skates as bycatch in other fisheries, and a small, directed fishery still operates on the Grand Banks. Available information suggests that catch is well below the total allowable catch limits as set by NAFO and Canada, indicating fishing mortality is controlled (Simpson et al., 2016). The Scotian shelf has been closed to directed fishery for skates (thorny and winter) since the early 2000s. In addition to compliance with catch limits, thorny skate abundance has been stable on the Grand Banks and the rest of Canada, yet still below historical levels (COSEWIC 2012). Recruitment in this portion of the species' range remains relatively high. Therefore, existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality.

    Northeast Atlantic Regulations

    There is a prohibition against landing thorny skates from European Union waters in the Barents Sea and east of the United Kingdom (ICES 2015). A very small fishery exists in Iceland and off East Greenland, where survey numbers have remained stable since 2000 (ICES 2015). With populations within the Northeast Atlantic currently considered stable (ICES 2015), existing regulatory measures appear sufficient to control fishing mortality within this region. Iceland reported 1625 t of thorny skate landings in 2014. A 2016 EU regulation prohibits thorny skate landings in EU waters of ICES divisions IIa, IIIa and VIId and ICES subarea IV Subareas II and IV and Division IIIa (Norwegian Sea, North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat), based on ICES advice that a precautionary approach dictates no targeted fishing and measures to reduce bycatch. ICES advice for this species west of the UK is currently pending. Thorny skates taken from these EU waters are counted under a regional EU skate quota that lacks a robust scientific basis. EU limits on these species have been generally trending toward more precautionary over the last decade.

    Legal protections for thorny skates vary between outright prohibitions on landings in the United States and much of the Northeast Atlantic, with limited fishing permitted in Canada and Iceland. While thorny skates are also a bycatch species within many fisheries, stable population numbers indicate existing protections are sufficient through its range. The mean score we calculated based on workshop participants' individual scores for both global/national climate change regulations and NAFO fishing regulations indicate that inadequacy of these regulations represents a low to moderate contribution to extinction risk. However, workshop participants also noted uncertainty related to other global or national environmental regulations in this category because there is more uncertainty in their effectiveness to result in protections for marine ecosystems.

    Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Thorny Skate's Continued Existence

    The workshop participants individually evaluated the available information on other potential threats as summarized in the status review report. Natural threats focused on the thorny skate's inherent biological vulnerability, which is also reflected in the demographic factors described above. The species has low productivity because of its life history characteristics and is vulnerable to exploitation and population perturbations. Populations can be quickly depleted and take many years to recover. However, their mobility, high genetic diversity, and generalist habitat and diet strategy contribute to a low risk of extinction. The mean scores we calculated based on workshop participants' individual scores indicate that both manmade catastrophic events and stochastic events represent very low contributions to extinction risk because of the wide geographic distribution of the species.

    Summary of Demographic Factors and Threats Affecting Thorny Skate

    Both demographic factors and threats were qualitatively ranked on a scale from very low to very high by the workshop participants (NMFS 2017). No demographic factors or threats were ranked high or very high. Abundance, diversity and spatial structure/connectivity were ranked very low to low, and growth rate/productivity was ranked low to moderate risk. For the workshop participants' threats assessments, both climate change and global or national climate change regulations received the most likelihood points in the moderate contribution to extinction risk category. Only one threat, climate change, received likelihood points in the high contribution category, though the majority of points were in the moderate contribution category. No threats considered by workshop participants were given an overall average score of medium, high or very high contributions to extinction risk of thorny skate. All workshop participants placed their individual point allocations in the very low contribution to extinction risk category for the following threats: Recreational fishing, recreational discards, educational collection, and stochastic events.

    The only demographic factor ranked above low was growth rate/productivity (low to moderate risk). The thorny skate's life history traits make the populations vulnerable to threats and slow to recover from depletion. Once we compiled the individual workshop participant scores and calculated the mean score, only six threats were ranked in the low to moderate category, all others were in the very low to low categories. The threats ranked low to moderate included: Climate change, manmade non-fishing habitat impacts, commercial discards, commercial landings, global and national climate regulation, and inadequacy of existing NAFO regulations. Fishing for thorny skates is managed throughout the species' range. Efforts to manage the harvest of the species include regulations put forth by the United States, Canada, NAFO, and ICES, though workshop participants expressed uncertainty in the adequacy of NAFO regulation. Due to these recent management efforts, thorny skate abundance has stabilized in the several regions (e.g., United States, South Labrador Shelf, North Gulf of St. Lawrence, Norway) and has increased in some waters (e.g. Grand Banks). Given its life history traits, return to historical abundances may take decades, but demographic risks are mostly low and significant threats have been reduced.

    Overall Risk Summary

    As described previously, the workshop participants used a “likelihood analysis” to evaluate the overall risk of extinction. Each workshop participant had 10 likelihood points to distribute among the following overall extinction risk categories: Low risk, moderate risk or high risk.

    Overall, the mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that rangewide, thorny skates have a 93.3 percent likelihood of being at low risk of extinction, 6.6 percent likelihood of moderate risk of extinction, and 0 percent likelihood of high risk of extinction.

    The mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that, overall, the thorny skate is at low risk of extinction. None of the workshop participants indicated that there was any likelihood of the thorny skate having a high risk of extinction. Additionally, there was very little likelihood of a moderate risk of extinction (4 points out of 60 total).

    Thorny skates have been subjected to considerable fishing pressure for many decades, but improved fisheries management efforts in recent years have reduced fishing mortality rates on thorny skate stocks, and populations are no longer declining. Return to historical abundance may take decades, but demographic risks are mostly low and significant threats have been reduced. Based upon the available information summarized here, the mean scores we calculated based on the workshop participants' individual scores indicate that the thorny skate has a low risk of extinction, assuming the dominant threats to its populations continue to be managed. We have no reason to believe that these dominant threats will not continue to be managed.

    We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the status review report (NMFS 2017) and other published and unpublished information. We conclude that the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout its range. As described earlier, an endangered species is “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species is one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” The workshop participants individually ranked the demographic criteria and the five factors identified in the ESA, completed an assessment of overall extinction risk, and each submitted his/her individual expert opinions to us. We reviewed the results of the ERA and concurred with the workshop participant's individual expert opinions regarding extinction risk. We then applied the statutory definitions of “threatened species” and “endangered species” to the ERA results and other available information to determine if listing the thorny skate was warranted.

    The mean scores we calculated based on the ERA workshop participant scores indicate that the level of extinction risk to the thorny skate is low, with 93.3 percent of the workshop participants' likelihood points allocated to the “low risk” category. The workshop participants allocated only 6.6 percent of their likelihood points to the “moderate extinction risk” category. Given this low level of extinction risk, which is based on an evaluation of the contribution of the thorny skate's demographic parameters and threats to extinction risk, we have determined that the thorny skate does not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species and, as such, listing under the ESA is not warranted at this time.

    Significant Portion of Its Range

    Though we find that the thorny skate rangewide is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future, under the SPR Policy, we must go on to evaluate whether these species are in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, in a “significant portion of its range” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

    When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of the range that warrant further consideration. The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be significant or in which a species may not be endangered or threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its range—rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed analysis of the issue is required (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Making this preliminary determination triggers a need for further review, but does not prejudge whether the portion actually meets these standards such that the species should be listed.

    If this preliminary determination identifies a particular portion or portions for potential listing, those portions are then fully evaluated under the “significant portion of its range” authority as to whether the portion is both biologically significant and endangered or threatened. In making a determination of significance, we consider the contribution of the individuals in that portion to the viability of the species. That is, we determine whether the portion's contribution to the viability is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.

    The SPR policy further explains that, depending on the particular facts of each situation, we may find it is more efficient to address the significance issue first, but in other cases, it will make more sense to examine the status of the species in the potentially significant portions first. Whichever question is asked first, an affirmative answer is required to proceed to the second question. Id. “[I]f we determine that a portion of the range is not `significant,' we will not need to determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion of its range, we will not need to determine if that portion is `significant' ” (79 FR 37587). Thus, if the answer to the first question is negative—whether it addresses the significance question or the status question—then the analysis concludes, and listing is not warranted.

    As described previously, we determined that there are no DPSs of the thorny skate, and rangewide, the thorny skate is at a low risk of extinction. Applying the SPR policy to the thorny skate, we first evaluated whether there is substantial information indicating that any portions of the species' range may be significant. After a review of the best available information and invited experts' opinions, as described below, we find that the data do not indicate any portion of the thorny skate's range as being more significant than another. Thorny skates are distributed across the North Atlantic and have very few restrictions governing their movements. Movements are restricted by depth and temperature; however, there are no known gaps in suitable habitat, thus allowing a continuous range. Because the Northwest Atlantic and the Northeast Atlantic are the two largest portions of the species' range, the workshop participants individually considered the SPR questions related to abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity outlined in the NMFS listing guidance. As explained below, we determined that neither the Northwest Atlantic nor the Northeast Atlantic were significant portions. Given that neither the Northwest Atlantic nor the Northeast Atlantic represents a significant portion of the range, we do not find that thorny skate in U.S. waters represent a significant portion of the range of the thorny skate. The following questions related to significance of portions were considered:

    Abundance

    • Without that portion, would the level of abundance of the remainder of the species cause the species to be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to environmental variation or anthropogenic perturbations (of the patterns and magnitudes observed in the past and expected in the future)?

    • Without that portion, would the abundance of the remainder of the species be so low, or variability in abundance so high, that it would be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to depensatory processes?

    • Without that portion, would abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that its genetic diversity would be at risk due to inbreeding depression, loss of genetic variation, or fixation of deleterious alleles?

    • Without that portion, would abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that it would be at moderate or high risk of extinction due to its inability to provide important ecological functions throughout its life-cycle?

    • Without that portion, would the abundance of the remainder of the species be so low that it would be at risk due to demographic stochasticity?

    Productivity

    • Without that portion, would the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species be below replacement such that it would be at moderate or high risk of satisfying the abundance conditions described above?

    • Without that portion, would the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species be below replacement such that it is unable to exploit requisite habitats/niches/etc. or at risk due to depensatory processes during any life-history stage?

    • Without that portion, would the remainder of the species exhibit trends or shifts in demographic or reproductive traits that portend declines in the per capita growth rate, which pose a risk of satisfying any of the preceding conditions?

    Spatial Distribution

    • Will the loss of one or more of the portions significantly increase the risk of extinction to the species as a whole by making the species more vulnerable to catastrophic events such as storms, disease or temperature anomalies?

    • Will connectivity between portions of the species' range be maintained if a portion is lost (e.g., does the loss of one portion of the range of the species create isolated groups or populations?)?

    • Are there particular habitat types that the species occupies that are only found in certain portions of the species' range? If so, would these habitat types be accessible if a portion or portions of the range of the species are lost?

    • Are threats to the species concentrated in particular portions of the species' range and if so, do these threats pose an increased risk of extinction to those portions' persistence?

    Diversity

    • Will unique genetic diversity be lost if a portion of the range of the species is lost?

    • Does the loss of this genetic diversity pose an increased risk of extinction to the species?

    As described more fully in the status review report and below, the workshop participants individually answered “no” to all of the abundance, productivity and diversity questions related to whether the Northwest Atlantic or the Northeast Atlantic portion represent a significant portion of the species' range. One workshop participant answered “yes” to two spatial distribution questions.

    Given estimates of 1.8 billion animals in Northwest Atlantic waters, which represent 30-40 percent of the overall population, loss of the Northwest Atlantic population would have a large impact on the species rangewide, but would not put the species at a moderate or high risk of extinction because of the remaining large population size and wide geographic distribution. When considering productivity, the group noted that the average growth rate for the species does not depend on the growth rate in the Northwest Atlantic and vice versa for the Northeast Atlantic and that the areas do not exhibit source-sink dynamics. There was no evidence that without either area the average population growth rate of the remainder of the species would drop below replacement, resulting in the population being unable to exploit requisite habitat, nor was there any evidence that the remainder of the species would be at risk due to depensatory processes. Regarding shifts in demographic or reproductive traits, the group could not identify evidence that a decline in the Northwest Atlantic would result in a decline in the Northeast Atlantic. Given the large spatial distribution of the thorny skate and the foreseeable future of 40 years, the group could not identify a stochastic event that could impact the entire Northwest Atlantic or Northeast Atlantic distribution of the thorny skate. There is no information to suggest that loss of any portion would severely fragment and isolate the species to the point where individuals would be precluded from moving to suitable habitats or have an increased vulnerability to threats. The loss of either the Northwest Atlantic population or the Northeast Atlantic population would result in the loss of connectivity rangewide, given that it is a continuous population. However, loss of the Northwest Atlantic population would not affect spatial connectivity of the Northeast Atlantic population and vice versa. Some genetic differentiation is present between the Northwest and Northeast Atlantic, but the central portion of the range appears to bridge diversity between these two areas. This is likely made possible by the continuous distribution and depth range of the species. There is no substantial evidence to indicate that the loss of genetic diversity from one portion of the species' range would result in the remaining populations lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for adaptations to changing environmental conditions. Based on the best available genetic research, thorny skates have the highest genetic diversity out of 15 studied skate species (Lynghammar et al., 2014), and the highest diversity occurs in waters near Iceland and Greenland. Due to the genetic diversity present in thorny skates across the species' range, loss of either the Northeast Atlantic population or Northwest Atlantic population would not present a significant increase in the extinction risk to the species.

    The petitioners identified the U.S. population as a potential DPS. As noted above, this portion does not qualify as a DPS. We considered whether U.S. waters could be a significant portion of the species' range. However, due to the workshop participants individual expert opinions related to abundance, productivity, spatial distribution, and diversity questions for the larger Northwest Atlantic and Northeast Atlantic populations and our findings that neither of these constitute a significant portion of the species' range, and given the United States represents only a small portion of the global range of the thorny skate, there is little evidence for concluding that the U.S. population is significant to the entire species under the SPR policy. Furthermore, there is no indication that loss of the U.S. portion of the species' range would result in a moderate or high extinction risk to the global species. As was mentioned previously, the available population and trend data do not indicate that past declines in the United States have affected global populations of thorny skate. Thus, the United States population would not qualify as “significant” under the SPR Policy. Likewise, there is no substantial evidence to indicate that the loss of genetic diversity from one portion of the species' range would result in the remaining populations lacking enough genetic diversity to allow for adaptations to changing environmental conditions. Similarly, there is no information to suggest that loss of any portion would severely fragment and isolate the species to the point where individuals would be precluded from moving to suitable habitats or have an increased vulnerability to threats. In other words, loss of any portion of its range would not likely isolate the species to the point where the remaining populations would be at risk of extinction from demographic processes.

    In summary, areas exhibiting source-sink dynamics, which could affect the survival of the species, were not evident in any part of the thorny skate's range. There is also no evidence of a portion that encompasses aspects that are important to specific life history stages, but another portion that does not, where loss of the former portion would severely impact the growth, reproduction, or survival of the entire species. In other words, the viability of the species does not appear to depend on the productivity of the population or the environmental characteristics in any one portion. It is important to note that the overall distribution of the thorny skate is still uncertain. As better data become available, the species' distribution (and potentially significant portions of its range) will become better resolved. However, at this time, there is no evidence to suggest that any specific portion of the species' range has increased importance over another with respect to the species' survival. We reviewed the individual workshop participants' expert opinions and application of the SPR policy. We conclude that under the SPR policy, the preliminary determination that a portion of the species' range may be both significant and endangered or threatened has not been met. Therefore, listing the thorny skate based on it being threatened or endangered in a significant portion of its range is not warranted under the SPR policy.

    Final Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that listing determinations be based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information, including the petition, information submitted in response to the 90-day finding (80 FR 65175; October 28, 2015), the status review report (NMFS 2017), and other published and unpublished information cited herein, and we have consulted with species experts and individuals familiar with the thorny skate. We identified no DPSs of the thorny skate and therefore considered the species rangewide. We considered each of the section 4(a)(1) factors to determine whether any one of the factors contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the species. We also considered the combination of those factors to determine whether they collectively contributed significantly to extinction risk. As previously explained, we could not identify any portion of the species' range that met both criteria of the SPR policy. Therefore, our determination set forth below is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the status of the species throughout its range.

    We conclude that the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. We summarize the factors supporting this conclusion as follows: (1) The species is broadly distributed over a large geographic range within the North Atlantic Ocean, with no barrier to dispersal; (2) genetic data indicate that populations are not isolated and that the species has high genetic diversity, (3) while the species possesses life history characteristics that increase its vulnerability to overutilization, overfishing is not currently occurring within the range; (4) the best available information indicates that abundance and biomass has stabilized rangewide and on the edge of the range in U.S. waters; (5) current thorny skate populations are numerous in many areas and the area occupied is increasing; (6) while the current population size has declined from historical numbers, the population size is sufficient to maintain population viability into the foreseeable future and consists of at least millions of individuals; (7) a main threat to the species is fishery-related mortality from incidental catch (bycatch); however, there are strict management measures in place to minimize this threat throughout the species' range, and these measures appear to be effective in addressing this threat as evidenced by stabilizing numbers of thorny skates; (8) there is no evidence that disease or predation is contributing to increasing the risk of extinction; and (9) there is no evidence that the species is currently suffering from depensatory processes (such as reduced likelihood of finding a mate or mate choice or diminished fertilization and recruitment success) or is at risk of extinction due to environmental variation or anthropogenic perturbations.

    Since the thorny skate is not in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range or likely to become so within the foreseeable future, it does not meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species. Therefore, the thorny skate does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time.

    Thorny skates in the Atlantic Ocean from West Greenland to New York were identified as a NMFS “species of concern” in 2006. A species of concern is one for which we have concerns regarding status and threats but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species under the ESA. In identifying species of concern, we consider demographic and genetic diversity concerns; abundance and productivity; distribution; life history characteristics and threats to the species. Given the information presented in the status review report and the findings of this listing determination, we are removing the thorny skate from the “species of concern” list.

    References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03644 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF242 New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its NEFMC External Peer Review Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch Control Rules from to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Monday, March 13, 2017 through Wednesday, March 15 starting at 9 a.m. all three days.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites, Boston Logan Airport, 207 Porter Street, Boston, MA 02128: (617) 657-5000.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is conducting a peer review of the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rules. Atlantic herring, predators, and economic models were developed to evaluate control rules and performance metrics. Experts have been invited by the Council to evaluate the MSE methods, data, and results. The panel will evaluate whether the MSE is sufficient for the Council to use when identifying and analyzing a range of ABC control rule alternatives in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. This public meeting will have designated times on the agenda when public comment is welcome.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03642 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF240 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday and Thursday, March 15-16, 2017, beginning at 1 p.m. on March 15 and conclude by 1 p.m. on March 16. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will at the Royal Sonesta Harbor Court, 550 Light Street, Baltimore, MD 21202; telephone: (410) 234-0550.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is to make multi-year ABC recommendations for golden and blueline tilefish based on updated stock assessment information recently complied for both species. In addition, topics to be discussed include the NEFSC Ecosystem Status Report, SSC OFL CV Progress Report, MRIP Evaluation Report and establishing status determination criteria for chub mackerel.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03658 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 3D Nation Requirements and Benefits Elevation Data Study Questionnaire AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Ashley Chappell, NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Coordinator, 1315 East West Hwy SSMC3 Rm 6813, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 240-429-0293, or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Coast Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Geospatial Program plan to conduct a follow-on study to the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA) white paper finalized in 2012 (NEEA overview can be found at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3088/). This NEEA follow-on study will incorporate coastal and ocean requirements for elevation data along with a revisit of the terrestrial elevation data needs assessed via a similar survey in 2010 (OMB Control No. 1028-0099). The primary tool to gather information will be a questionnaire covering a wide range of business uses that depend on 3D data to inform policy, regulation, scientific research, and management decisions. For purposes of this questionnaire, 3D data refers to topographic data (precise three-dimensional measurements of the terrestrial terrain) and bathymetric data (three-dimensional surface of the underwater terrain). Questions will be asked about how 3D data relate to other data types such as the shoreline; characteristics of tides, currents, and waves; and the physical and chemical properties of the water itself. A series of questions will be asked as they relate to specific Mission Critical Activities. These will include questions about the area (geographic extent), 3D data accuracy requirements, linkages to other data to support a wide range of analysis, and benefits of having the required data.

    NOAA, USGS and partner mapping agencies are working to improve the technology systems, data, and services that provide information about 3D data and related applications within the United States. By learning more about business uses and associated benefits that would be realized from improved 3D data, the agencies will be able to prioritize and direct investments that will best serve user needs. This questionnaire is part of an effort to develop and refine future program alternatives that would provide enhanced 3D data to meet many Federal, State, and other national business needs.

    Because 3D data are collected and used to meet a wide range of mission critical needs, we are seeking input from managers and data users from a variety of government entities (e.g., Federal, State, local, Tribal) as well as not for profit, academic, and private/commercial entities. The findings are expected to establish a baseline of national business needs and associated benefits for 3D data and associated technologies. This baseline will enhance the responsiveness of NOAA, USGS, and partner agency programs to stakeholder needs, and inform the design of directed future programs that balance requirements, benefits, and costs at a national scale. Collected responses will be aggregated at the agency and national levels. Responses associated with individuals will not be distributed. The information collection process will be guided by an interagency management team led by NOAA and USGS with support from a professional services contractor. The information collection will be conducted using a standardized template. Responses are one-time and voluntary. In-person interviews to clarify questionnaire results may also be arranged. The draft questionnaire will be posted for the duration of this public comment period at the NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping site (https://iocm.noaa.gov/).

    II. Method of Collection

    Emails will be sent to a comprehensive list of stakeholders, with requests to forward to any other interested participants. The emails will include a link to the online survey, which can also be provided upon request by paper or other means. In-person interviews may follow to resolve questions, clarify answers and add more detail to responses.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-xxxx.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular (request for a new information collection).

    Affected Public: Federal government, State, local or tribal governments; not-for-profit institutions, academia, business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 600.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,200.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0 in recordkeeping/reporting activities.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03594 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF237 Fishing Capacity Reduction Program for the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of sub-loan repayment.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues this notice to inform interested parties that the Washington coastal Dungeness crab sub-loan in the Pacific Coast Groundfish Capacity Reduction (Buyback) Program has been repaid. Therefore, Buyback fee collections on Washington coastal Dungeness crab sub-loan will cease for all landings after January 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before 5 p.m. EST March 13, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments about this notice to Paul Marx, Chief, Financial Services Division, NMFS, Attn: Washington coastal Dungeness crab Buyback, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael A. Sturtevant at (301) 427-8782 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 16, 2004, NMFS published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 67100) proposing to implement an industry fee system for repaying the Washington coastal Dungeness crab Buyback sub-loan. The final rule was published July 13, 2005 (70 FR 40225) and fee collection began on September 8, 2005. Interested persons should review these for further program details.

    The Washington coastal Dungeness crab Buyback sub-loan in the amount of $369,425.93 will be repaid in full upon receipt of buyback fees on landings through January 31, 2017. NMFS has received $620,742.30 to repay the principal and interest on this sub-loan since fee collection began September 8, 2005. Based on Buyback fees received to date, landings after January 31, 2017, will not be subject to the Buyback fee. Therefore, Buyback fees will no longer be collected in the Washington coastal Dungeness crab fishery on future landings.

    Buyback fees not yet forwarded to NMFS for Washington coastal Dungeness crab landings through January 31, 2017, should be forwarded to NMFS immediately. Any overpayment of Buyback fees submitted to NMFS will be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the fish buyers based upon best available fish ticket landings data. The fish buyers should return excess Buyback fees collected to the harvesters, including Buyback fees collected but not yet remitted to NMFS for landings after January 31, 2017. Any discrepancies in fees owed and fees paid must be resolved immediately. After the sub-loan is closed, no further adjustments to fees paid and fees received can be made.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Brian T. Pawlak, CFO/Director, Office of Management and Budget, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03597 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF241 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public workshop of its Habitat Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Monday, March 13, 2017, Tuesday, March 14, 2017 and Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. each day.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Fairfield Inn & Suites, 185 MacArthur Drive, New Bedford, MA 02740 on Monday, March 13 and Tuesday, March 14, 2017 and at the Sheraton Harborside, 250 Market Street, Portsmouth, NH 03801 on Wednesday, March 15, 2017.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Council is developing management areas to protect deep-sea or cold water corals found offshore New England from impacts due to fishing gear interactions. Concentrations of corals occur in the canyons, continental slope, and seamounts south of Georges Bank, and also in deep waters of the Gulf of Maine, including some inshore sites (Mt. Desert Rock and Outer Schoodic Ridge) as well as in Jordan and Georges Basins offshore. Some coral habitats appear to be actively fished, while others appear to be beyond the current footprint of bottom-tending gear operations.

    In developing these coral management areas, the Council is seeking to minimize their impacts on existing fisheries. Designing these areas to accommodate fishing activity requires a detailed understanding of where different gears are used in relation to the potential coral management areas. Therefore, the Council is seeking guidance from active fishermen who use bottom-tending gears (trawls, traps, and other gear types) offshore in the Gulf of Maine and in the slope and canyon region south of Georges Bank. Other stakeholders interested in coral management are also welcome to attend the workshops and provide their input. Specifically, the Council is seeking: (1) Industry information on fishing activities within proposed coral protection zones; and (2) suggestions about how to refine management area boundaries to limit impacts to fishing operations while still providing protection for corals.

    Three days of discussion in two locations are scheduled:

    • In New Bedford (March 13 and 14) the workshop will focus on fishing activity in and around the draft deep-sea coral zones south of Georges Bank (canyons and continental slope). These zones are generally deeper than 150 fathoms. Note that large pelagic fishermen who work in the canyon/slope region are not proposed to be impacted by the Coral Amendment. The discussion is intended to carry over between the two days, so participants are encouraged to attend on both Monday and Tuesday if possible.

    • In Portsmouth (March 15) the workshop will focus on fishing activity in Jordan Basin and the Lindenkohl Knoll area of Georges Basin. Proposals for the inshore areas around Outer Schoodic Ridge and Mount Desert Rock are not the intended focus of this Portsmouth gathering.

    The purpose of these workshops is to refine the boundaries of the Council's existing proposals. Public hearings will be conducted later this spring to solicit comments, including general support of or opposition to, all areas proposed in the amendment.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03641 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket No. 17010523-7023-01] RIN 0660-XC033 The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Extension of Comment Period.

    SUMMARY:

    In response to requests for additional time, the Department of Commerce is extending the closing deadline for submitting comments to a request for public comments entitled “The Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Roles for the Government in Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things.” 82 FR 4313 (Jan. 13, 2017). In the request for comment, the Department is seeking broad input from all interested stakeholders—including the private industry, researchers, academia, and civil society—on the issues and proposed approach, current initiatives, and next steps laid out in the green paper “Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things.” Through this notice, the Department extends the comment period to March 13, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on March 13, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected] Comments submitted by email should be machine-searchable and should not be copy-protected. Written comments also may be submitted by mail to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Attn: IoT RFC 2016, Washington, DC 20230. Responders should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number, on each page of their submissions. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/internet-policy-task-force without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NTIA will also accept anonymous comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Travis Hall, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4725, Washington, DC 20230; Telephone: (202) 482-3522; Email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs: (202) 482-7002.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Recognizing the vital importance of the Internet to U.S. innovation, prosperity, education, and civic and cultural life, the Department of Commerce (Department) has made it a top priority to encourage growth of the digital economy and ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for innovation. Thus, as part of the Department's Digital Economy Agenda, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) issued a green paper “Fostering the Advancement of the Internet of Things” that lays out an approach and areas of engagement for the Department's possible future work on the Internet of Things (IoT). Through the request for comments, NTIA seeks broad input from all interested stakeholders—including the private industry, researchers, academia, and civil society—on the issues and proposed approach, current initiatives, and next steps laid out in this paper. These comments will help inform Department leadership on possible future Department action regarding IoT. Instructions for commenters, including specific questions for discussion, are available in the original notice. 82 FR 4313 (Jan. 13, 2017), available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_iot_notice_rfc_01132017.pdf.

    The original deadline for submission of comments was February 27, 2017. With this notice, NTIA announces that the closing deadline for submission of comments has been extended until March 13, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. EDT.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03682 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Addition AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 3/26/2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/27/2016 (81 FR 33665- 33666), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Mailroom and Courier Service. Mandatory for: Office of Personnel Management, 1137 Branchton Road, Boyers, PA. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Keystone Vocational Services, Inc., Hermitage, PA. Contracting Activity: Office of Personnel Management, OPM Boyers Region (FISD) Contracting, Boyers, PA. Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03670 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed deletions from the procurement list.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products from the Procurement List that was previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 3/26/2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT:

    Amy B. Jensen, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-545-3762—DAYMAX System, 2016, Calendar Pad, Type I 7510-01-545-3787—DAYMAX System, 2016, Calendar Pad, Type II Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Anthony Wayne Rehabilitation Center for Handicapped and Blind, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): PSIN 01249A-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01249B-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01249C-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01249D-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01249E-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01249F-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250A-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250B-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250C-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250D-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250E-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 01250F-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251A-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251B-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251C-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251D-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251E-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251F-Replaced—Tray Marker PSIN 1251G-Replaced—Tray Marker Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Brooke Industries, Inc., Fond du Lac, WI Contracting Activity: USPS Vehicles & Delivery and Industrial Equipment CMC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465-00-521-3057F—Case, Belt Weather Kit 8465-00-521-3057—Case, Belt Weather Kit Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Habilitation Center for the Handicapped, Inc., Boca Raton, FL Contracting Activities: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03643 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (Judicial Proceedings Panel); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Since Fiscal Year 2012 Amendments Panel (“the Judicial Proceedings Panel” or “the Panel”). The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    A meeting of the Judicial Proceedings Panel will be held on Friday, March 10, 2017. The public session will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    One Liberty Center, Executive Conference Center, 14th Floor, 875 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Julie Carson, Judicial Proceedings Panel, One Liberty Center, Suite 150, 875 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 693-3849. Web site: http://jpp.whs.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This public meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: In section 576(a)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239), as amended, Congress tasked the Judicial Proceedings Panel to conduct an independent review and assessment of judicial proceedings conducted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involving adult sexual assault and related offenses since the amendments made to the UCMJ by section 541 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81; 125 Stat. 1404), for the purpose of developing recommendations for improvements to such proceedings. At this meeting, the Panel will receive a presentation from the JPP Subcommittee on the Subcommittee's site visit observations regarding the Department of Defense withholding policy for initial disposition of certain sexual assault offenses, military attorney training, and Military Rules of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412 and 513 relating to a victim's prior sexual history and the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The Panel will then conduct final deliberations on its draft Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases Report and Victims' Appellate Rights Report. For the last session, the Panel will deliberate on the M.R.E. 412 and 513 issues identified during the January 6, 2017, public meeting.

    Agenda 8:30 a.m.-9:00 a.m. Administrative Work (41 CFR 102-3.160, not subject to notice & open meeting requirements) 9:00 a.m.-9:15 a.m. Welcome and Introduction 9:15 a.m.-10:45 a.m. Subcommittee Presentation on Site Visit Observations Regarding the Department of Defense Withholding Policy, Attorney Training, and M.R.E. 412 and 513 —Brigadier General James Schwenk, U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), JPP Subcommittee member 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. Final Deliberations on Draft JPP Military Defense Counsel Resources and Experience in Sexual Assault Cases Report 12:15 p.m.-12:45 p.m. Lunch 12:45 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Final Deliberations on Draft JPP Victims' Appellate Rights Report 2:15 p.m.-4:15 p.m. Panel Deliberations on M.R.E. 412 and 513 4:15 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Public Comment 4:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourned

    Availability of Materials for the Meeting: A copy of the March 10, 2017, public meeting agenda and any updates or changes to the agenda, including the location and individual speakers not identified at the time of this notice, as well as other materials provided to Panel members for use at the public meeting, may be obtained at the meeting or from the Panel's Web site at http://jpp.whs.mil.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. Visitors are required to sign in at the One Liberty Center security desk and must leave government-issued photo identification on file while in the building. Department of Defense Common Access Card (CAC) holders who do not have authorized access to One Liberty Center must provide an alternate form of government-issued photo identification to leave on file with security while in the building. All visitors must pass through a metal detection security screening. In the event the Office of Personnel Management closes the government due to inclement weather or for any other reason, please consult the Web site for any changes to the public meeting date or time.

    Special Accommodations: Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Procedures for Providing Public Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments to the Panel about its mission and topics pertaining to this public session. Written comments must be received by the JPP at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting date so that they may be made available to the Judicial Proceedings Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be submitted via email to the Judicial Proceedings Panel at [email protected] in the following formats: Adobe Acrobat or Microsoft Word. Please note that since the Judicial Proceedings Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all written comments will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection. If members of the public are interested in making an oral statement pertaining to the agenda for the public meeting, a written statement must be submitted as above along with a request to provide an oral statement. After reviewing the written comments and the oral statement, the Chair and the Designated Federal Official will determine who will be permitted to make an oral presentation of their issue during the public comment portion of this meeting. This determination is at the sole discretion of the Chair and Designated Federal Official, will depend on the time available and relevance to the Panel's activities for that meeting, and will be on a first-come basis. When approved in advance, oral presentations by members of the public will be permitted from 4:15 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on March 10, 2017, in front of the Panel members.

    Committee's Designated Federal Official: The Panel's Designated Federal Official is Ms. Maria Fried, Department of Defense, Office of the General Counsel, 1600 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B747, Washington, DC 20301-1600.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03683 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Meeting of the Ocean Research Advisory Panel AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ocean Research Advisory Panel (ORAP) will hold a regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 7, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Time. Members of the public should submit their comments in advance of the meeting to the meeting Point of Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    This will be a teleconference. For access, connect to: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/822051381. The call-in number will be: 312-757-3121, with access code: 822-051-381.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CDR Joel W. Feldmeier, Office of Naval Research, 875 North Randolph Street, Suite 1425, Arlington, VA 22203-1995, telephone 703-696-5121.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice of open meeting is provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The meeting will include discussions on ocean research, resource management, and other current issues in the ocean science and management communities.

    Dated: February 13, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03263 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Availability of Records of Decision for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment To Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, Department of Defense; Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the availability of the Records of Decision (RODs) by the DoN and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center, Twentynine Palms, California. The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment) signed the DoN ROD on February 10, 2017. The BLM California Desert District Manager signed the BLM ROD on February 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the DoN ROD and the BLM ROD, along with the Final SEIS and other supporting documents, are available for public viewing on the DoN's project Web site: www.SEISforLAA.com and on the Combat Center's Web site: www.29palms.marines.mil/Staff/G5-Government-and-External-Affairs/SEISforLAA. The BLM ROD is also available on the agency's ePlanning Web site at: https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=108440. Copies of both RODs are also available at the following public libraries: Newton T. Bass Apple Valley Branch Library, Apple Valley, CA; Barstow Branch Library, Barstow, CA; Palm Springs Public Library, Palm Springs, CA; Stanley Mosk Library and Courts Building, Sacramento, CA; San Bernardino County Library Administrative Offices, San Bernardino, CA; Twentynine Palms Branch Library, Twentynine Palms, CA; Victorville City Library, Victorville, CA; Yucca Valley Branch Library, Yucca Valley, CA; Joshua Tree Branch Library, Joshua Tree, CA; Lucerne Valley Janice Horst Branch Library, Lucerne Valley, CA; Needles Branch Library, Needles, CA; and Ovitt Family Community Library, Ontario, CA.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    DoN: Mr. Jesse Martinez, Project Manager, SEIS for 29Palms Land Acquisition/Airspace Establishment Project, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 1220 Pacific Highway, San Diego, California 92132-5190. Telephone: 619-532-3844. BLM: Ms. Katrina Symons, Field Manager, BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311. Telephone: 760-252-6004.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, 42 United States Code 4321-4370h, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508, the DoN NEPA regulations (32 CFR part 775), and Marine Corps Order P5090.2A (with Changes 1-3) Marine Corps Environmental Compliance and Protection Manual, Chapter 12, the DoN, after carefully considering the operational and environmental consequences of the proposed action and alternatives analyzed in a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), announces the availability of its ROD to translocate a population of the federal-listed threatened Agassiz's desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii, hereinafter “desert tortoise”) from high- and moderate-impact training areas at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California (hereinafter, “the Combat Center”). In its ROD, the DoN has selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) from the Final SEIS, which provides for the implementation of a June 2016 Desert Tortoise Translocation Plan. The Plan will guide translocation of desert tortoises in accordance with requirements of a January 2017 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion (hereinafter the “2017 BO,” which superseded a previous 2012 BO), and a 2013 DoN ROD associated with the 2012 Final EIS for Land Acquisition and Airspace Establishment to Support Large-Scale Marine Air Ground Task Force Live-Fire and Maneuver Training at the Combat Center (hereinafter the “2012 Final EIS”).

    The DoN ROD documents why the DoN has chosen to implement the preferred alternative as described in the 2017 Final SEIS. This decision adopts all of the special conservation measures that were identified in the Final SEIS to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts from the preferred alternative. The ROD also includes descriptions and discussions of the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed action, and responds to substantive comments received since the Final SEIS was released.

    The BLM, which served as a Cooperating Agency during preparation of the SEIS, adopted the SEIS and prepared a separate ROD regarding the SEIS actions proposed on BLM-managed lands. The BLM's involvement as a cooperating agency in the development of the SEIS was triggered by its current jurisdiction by law and special expertise over a portion of lands considered for translocation of desert tortoises. The BLM has unique knowledge of the public lands under its management and has the expertise essential to help evaluate appropriate parcels of land to meet translocation requirements. The BLM conducted frequent coordination with DON throughout the SEIS process. The BLM ROD explains the rationale for its independent selection of Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) of the SEIS. The BLM decision is subject to a 30-day appeal period commencing with the publication of this Notice. A party that is adversely affected by the BLM's decision may file an appeal in accordance with the procedures in 43 CFR part 4.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03694 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2016-ICCD-0136] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program—150% Limitation AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0136. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program—150% Limitation.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0116.

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

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Individuals or Households; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 7,770,494.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 282,713.

    Abstract: These data will allow the Department to calculate the borrowers maximum eligibility period, subsidized usage period, and remaining eligibility period as described in 685.200(f)(1)(ii)-(f)(1)(iv), determine whether the borrower is eligible to receive an additional Direct Subsidized Loan, and ensure that borrowers do not receive Direct Subsidized Loans if they are no longer eligible to receive a Direct Subsidized Loan under 685.200(f)(2). The Department will determine whether the borrower is responsible for accruing interest on their previously received Direct Subsidized Loans. To ensure that the Department has the information to necessary to make that determination, institutions will be required to report additional information to NSLDS. For example, institutions will be required to report: The CIP code and the credential level for the program in which a borrower is enrolled; the length of the program in academic years, weeks, or months (consistent with current institutional reporting in the COD System); and a more detailed enrollment status of the borrower (e.g., full-time, three-quarter-time, half-time, or less-than-half-time). These data will allow the Department to determine whether a borrower who is not eligible for additional Direct Subsidized Loans is responsible for accruing interest on his or her previously received Direct Subsidized Loans. The regulations implement a new statutory requirement that significantly limits a borrowers eligibility for Direct Subsidized Loans and potentially results in the borrower becoming responsible for accruing interest on existing Direct Subsidized Loans. Under section 485(l) of the HEA, which requires that borrowers be provided with entrance and exit counseling on the provisions governing federal student aid, institutions will be required to revise the entrance and exit counseling provided to borrowers. For entrance counseling, the added counseling requirements under 685.304 will require institutions to explain the new provisions to borrowers.

    Dated: February 21, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03599 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-80-000.

    Applicants: Ebensburg Power Company, Babcock & Wilcox Ebensburg Power, LLC, Ebensburg Investors Limited Partnership.

    Description: Application for Authorization of Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Ebensburg Power Company, et. al.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5211.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-81-000.

    Applicants: Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities and Request for Expedited Action of Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5041.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-64-000.

    Applicants: Chambersburg Energy, LLC.

    Description: Chambersburg Energy, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-65-000.

    Applicants: Gans Energy, LLC.

    Description: Gans Energy, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5093.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-66-000.

    Applicants: Hunlock Energy, LLC.

    Description: Hunlock Energy, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5095.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-67-000.

    Applicants: Springdale Energy, LLC.

    Description: Springdale Energy, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-68-000.

    Applicants: Bath County Energy, LLC.

    Description: Bath County Energy, LLC submits Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4369-001; ER16-2218-001.

    Applicants: North American Power and Gas, LLC, North American Power Business, LLC.

    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the North American MBR Sellers.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5200.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-358-002.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Enhanced Combined Cycle Tariff Revisions to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5030.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-983-000.

    Applicants: North American Power and Gas, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 2/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-984-000.

    Applicants: North American Power Business, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Market-Based Rate Tariff Revisions to be effective 2/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5181.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-985-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-16_SA 2907 RockGen-ATC GIA (J382/J384) to be effective 2/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-986-000.

    Applicants: West Penn Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: West Penn Power Company Filing of Revised Attachment H-11A to PJM OATT to be effective 4/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-987-000.

    Applicants: Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 3/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5049.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-989-000.

    Applicants: Chambersburg Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5076.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-990-000.

    Applicants: Gans Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-991-000.

    Applicants: Hunlock Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-992-000.

    Applicants: Springdale Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-993-000.

    Applicants: Bath County Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization and Request for Waivers to be effective 2/18/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03587 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-82-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC, Cimarron Bend Wind Project II, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Cimarron Bend Assets, LLC, et. al.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-994-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Notice of Cancellation of Service Agreement Nos. 1873 and 1874 under ER08-858 to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-995-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PRECorp Transmission IC Agreement to be effective 4/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-996-000.

    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance re: Exempt new SCRs from BSM rules to be effective 2/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-997-000.

    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Albany Green LGIA Amendment Filing to be effective 2/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5171.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-998-000.

    Applicants: DATC Path 15, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised Appendix I 2017 to be effective 4/20/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-999-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-17_SA 3002 Hawks Nest Lake TIA to be effective 2/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5202.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1000-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-02-17_SA 3000 Exelon-MISO ENRIS (J374) to be effective 2/6/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5204.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES17-14-000.

    Applicants: Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc.

    Description: Application of the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. for Authorization to Issue Securities Pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act.

    Filed Date: 2/17/17.

    Accession Number: 20170217-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/10/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03588 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-46-000] Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 3, 2017, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (SNG), filed in Docket No. CP17-46-000 an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization to construct and operate its Fairburn Expansion Project to add 343,164 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to its existing pipeline system. Specifically, SNG proposes to: (i) Construct a new 4.9-mile, 30-inch-diameter pipeline that will interconnect with the existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company pipeline in Fayette County, Georgia; (ii) construct a 1.6-mile, 30-inch-diameter extension of the South Main Line System in Monroe County, Georgia; (iii) acquire an existing 19.7-mile, 30-inch-diameter pipeline lateral in Cobb and Fulton Counties, Georgia; (iv) install 18,000 horsepower of compression at a new compressor station in Fulton County, Georgia; (v) construct three new meter stations in Fayette, Fulton, and Cobb Counties, Georgia; and (vi) modify two existing meter stations in Fulton and Clayton Counties, Georgia. SNG estimates the cost of the project to be approximately $240 million, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    All questions should be directed to Brooks Henderson, Director, Rates & Regulatory Affairs, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, by phone (205) 325-3843 or by email [email protected].

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: March 10, 2017.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03591 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP16-498-000; PF16-4-000 ] Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the B-System Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental assessment (EA) for Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's (Columbia) B-System Project. The original notice of schedule, issued on December 20, 2016, identified March 13, 2017 as the EA issuance date. Due to updated B-System Project information filed by Columbia on February 7, 2017, staff has revised the schedule for issuance of the EA.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA—April 28, 2017 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—July 27, 2017

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the project's progress.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp). Additional information about the project may be obtained by contacting the Environmental Project Manager, Kenneth Warn, by telephone at 202-502-6859 or by electronic mail at [email protected]

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03565 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 7656-013] John A. Dodson; Village of Highland Falls High-Point Utility, LDC; Notice of Application for Transfer of License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    On August 11, 2016, and supplemented on November 28, 2016 and January 24, 2017, Mr. John A. Dodson (transferor) and the Village of Highland Falls High-Point Utility, LDC (transferee) filed an application to transfer the license for the Buttermilk Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 7656. The project is located on Buttermilk Falls Brook in Orange County, New York.

    The above parties seek Commission approval to transfer the license for the project from the transferor to the transferee.

    Applicants' Contact: For Transferor: Mr. John A. Dodson, 27 Webb Lane, Highland Falls, NY 10928, Phone: (914) 446-7704, Email: [email protected] For Transferee: Mr. William J. Florence, Jr., Village of Highland Falls High-Point Utility, LDC, 303 Main Street, Highland Falls, NY 10928, Phone: (914) 737-7001, Email: [email protected]

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

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-7656-013.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03567 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-976-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment AQ Revisions Addressing Non-Material Delivery Point Changes to be effective 4/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5074.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-977-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Oak Creek I Project SA Nos. 948-949 to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5078.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-978-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & DSA Oak Creek II Project SA Nos. 946-947 to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-979-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA SA No. 4618, Queue Position AB1-150 to be effective1/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5118.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-980-000.

    Applicants: Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AECS Updated Rate Schedule 2 to be effective 4/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-981-000.

    Applicants: PacifiCorp.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WAPA NITSA Rev 5 to be effective2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5145.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-982-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreement Nos. 3086 and 4118, Queue No. M24 to Sch. B, C, F to be effective 2/14/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5160.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03564 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 14824-000] Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 18, 2017, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Girard Estate Pumped Storage Hydro Project to be located near Zerbe Township in Northumberland County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 90 acres and a storage capacity of 1,350 acre-feet at a surface elevation of approximately 1,400 feet above mean sea level (msl) created through construction of a new roller-compacted concrete or rock-filled dam; (2) a new lower reservoir, including an existing abandoned mine pit, with a surface area of 25 acres and a storage capacity of 1,620 acre-feet at a surface elevation of 1,000 feet msl; (3) a new 2,242-foot-long, 48-inch-diameter penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a new 150-foot-long, 50-foot-wide, 25-foot-high powerhouse containing two turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 44 megawatts; (5) a new 10,000-foot-long transmission line connecting the powerhouse to the Sunbury-Eldred-Frackville 230-kilovolt circuit owned by PPL Corporation; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 161,587 megawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Adam Rousselle, Merchant Hydro Developers, LLC, 5710 Oak Crest Drive, Doylestown, PA 18902; phone: 267-254-6107.

    FERC Contact: Woohee Choi; phone: (202) 502-6336.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14824-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14824) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03592 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-48-000] Consumers Energy Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on February 16, 2017, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2), Consumers Energy Company (Consumers Energy) filed a petition seeking to terminate a long-standing controversy, and to remove uncertainty, between Consumers Energy and Michigan Electric Transmission Company regarding the ownership of Consumer Energy current transmission assets, as more fully explained in the petition.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in this proceeding must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. 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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also 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 20, 2017.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03589 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC17-2-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549D & FERC-733); Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection [FERC-549D (Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines) and FERC-733 (Demand Response/Time-Based Rate Programs and Advanced Metering)] to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 91160, 12/16/2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on neither the FERC-549D nor the FERC-733 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0253 (FERC-549D) and 1902-0271 (FERC-733) should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected]. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be reached via telephone at 202-395-4718.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC17-2-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the information collection requirements for all collections described below with no changes to the current reporting requirements. Please note that each collection is distinct from the next.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    FERC-549D, [Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines]

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0253.

    Abstract: The reporting requirements under FERC-549D are required to carry out the Commission's policies in accordance with the general authority in Sections 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 1 and Sections 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA).2 This collection promotes transparency by collecting and making available intrastate and Hinshaw pipeline transactional information. The Commission collects the data upon a standardized form with all requirements outlined in 18 CFR 284.126.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717-817-w.

    2 15 U.S.C. 3301-3432.

    The FERC Form 549D collects the following information:

    • Full legal name and identification number of the shipper receiving service;

    • Type of service performed for each transaction;

    • The rate charged under each transaction;

    • The primary receipt and delivery points for the transaction, specifying the rate schedule/name of service and docket were approved;

    • The quantity of natural gas the shipper is entitled to transport, store, and deliver for each transaction;

    • The term of the transaction, specifying the beginning and ending month and year of current agreement;

    • Total volumes transported, stored, injected or withdrawn for the shipper; and

    • Annual revenues received for each shipper, excluding revenues from storage services.

    Filers submit the Form-549D on a quarterly basis.

    Access to the FERC-549D Information Collection Materials: A copy of the current form and related materials can be found at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#549d, but will not be included in the Federal Register. The Commission will not publish these materials in the Federal Register.

    Type of Respondent: Intrastate natural gas and Hinshaw pipelines.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    FERC-549D [Quarterly Transportation and Storage Report for Interstate Natural Gas and Hinshaw Pipelines] Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total number of responses Average
  • burden hours
  • & cost per
  • response 3
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) PDF filings 76 4 304 12.5
  • $1,048
  • 3,800
  • $318,516
  • $4,191
  • XML filings 33
  • 4
  • 132
  • 10
  • $832
  • 1,320
  • $110,642
  • $3,352
    Total 436 5,120
  • $429,158
  • FERC-733, [Demand Response/Time-Based Rate Programs and Advanced Metering]

    3 The hourly wage figure is $83.82/hour. This cost represents the average cost of four career fields: Legal ($129.12/hour), Accountants ($53.86/hour), Management Analyst ($60.53/hour), and Computer and Information ($91.76/hour); this cost also includes benefit costs within the hourly estimates. These figures were compiled using Bureau of Labor Statistics data that were specific to each occupational category: http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm.

    Note:

    The Commission previously issued a 60-day Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 91160, 12/16/2016) requesting public comments. In that 60-day notice, the burden estimate for FERC-733 information collection was incorrect. The burden estimate below provides the corrected numbers. Footnotes 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 illustrate the previous figures (presented in the 60-day notice) and the corrected figures. FERC did not receive any comments on this or any other issue concerning the FERC-733 information collection.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0271.

    Abstract: Section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005,4 requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate region, that assesses demand response resources, including those available from all consumer classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 Section 1252(e)(3) requires that the Commission identify and review:

    4 Public Law 109-58, 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594, 966 (2005) (EPAct 2005).

    (A) saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and communications technologies, devices and systems;

    (B) existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;

    (C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;

    (D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable resource for regional planning purposes;

    (E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party; and

    (F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.

    Type of Respondent: Persons interested in the above topics.

    Estimate of Annual Burden: The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    Number of respondents Annual number of responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden hours & cost per
  • response 5
  • Total annual
  • burden hours & total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 3,400 1 3,400 6 3.5
  • 7 $260.75
  • 8 11,900
  • 9 $886,550
  • 10 $260.75
    Dated: February 17, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.

    5 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 2016 FERC average salary plus benefits of $154,647/year (or $74.50/hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this information collection is typically done by wage categories similar to those at FERC.

    6 This figure was incorrectly presented as 260.75 hours in the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to 3.5 hours in this notice.

    7 This figure was incorrectly presented as $19,426 in the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to $260.75 in this notice.

    8 This figure was incorrectly presented as 886,550 hours in the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to 11,900 hours in this notice.

    9 This figure was incorrectly presented as $66,047,975 in the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to $886,550 in this notice.

    10 This figure was incorrectly presented as $19,436 in the 60-day notice pertaining to the FERC-733 renewal. It is corrected to $260.75 in this notice.

    [FR Doc. 2017-03590 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-56-000 and CP17-57-000] Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Brazoria Interconnector Gas Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 3, 2017, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas Eastern) in Docket No. CP17-56-000 and Brazoria Interconnector Gas Pipeline LLC (Brazoria Pipeline) in Docket No. CP17-57-000, 5400 Westheimer Court, Houston, Texas 77056, jointly filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations for the proposed Stratton Ridge Expansion Project (Project) located in Brazoria County, Texas. The Project will create 322,000 Dth/d of firm transportation capacity to deliver natural gas from multiple receipt points on Texas Eastern's interstate pipeline system to a delivery point on Brazoria Pipeline's intrastate pipeline system at Stratton Ridge in Brazoria County, Texas.

    Specifically, the applicants request: (i) A certificate of public convenience and necessity for Texas Eastern to construct, install, own, operate and maintain the Project facilities, as proposed in the application, and acquire, by lease, capacity on the Brazoria Pipeline's non-jurisdictional facilities; (ii) authorization for Texas Eastern to charge the initial incremental recourse rates, an incremental fuel percentage and incremental electric power costs for firm service on the Project; (iii) authorization for Texas Eastern to establish separate initial incremental recourse rates and an applicable fuel percentage for service under Rate Schedules FT-1 and IT-1 applicable to shippers desiring access to the capacity leased on Brazoria Pipeline's facilities; and (iv) a limited jurisdiction certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Brazoria Pipeline to lease 322,000 Dth/d of pipeline capacity on its non-jurisdictional facilities to Texas Eastern. The Project is part of Texas Eastern's plan to develop firm bi-directional transportation service to connect diverse supply basins with emerging Gulf Coast markets, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Berk Donaldson, General Manager, Rates and Certificates, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and Brazoria Interconnector Gas Pipeline LLC, P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251, or phone by: (713) 627-4488, or fax: (713) 627-5947 or by email: [email protected].

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, 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.

    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 9, 2017.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03566 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AC17-47-000] 4C Acquisition, LLC; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on February 10, 2017, pursuant to 18 CFR parts 41, 101 and 141 (2016) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) Regulations, 4C Acquisition, LLC filed a request for waiver of accounting and financial reporting requirements for the Fourth Quarter of 2016.

    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. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on 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.

    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 3, 2017.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03562 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1910-014; ER10-1911-014.

    Applicants: Duquesne Light Company, Duquesne Power, LLC.

    Description: Updated Market Power Analyses for Northeast Region of the Duquesne Sellers.

    Filed Date: 2/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170215-5157.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-969-001.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3165 Otter Tail Power Company NITSA and NOA Notice of Cancellation to be effective 1/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170215-5110.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-974-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: WAPA Work Performance Agreement for Cottonwood-Olinda Line 1 and 2 (RS 228) to be effective 2/16/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/15/17.

    Accession Number: 20170215-5124.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-975-000.

    Applicants: Southwestern Public Service Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SPS-GSEC-RBEC-IA McDowell-688-0.0.0 to be effective 2/17/2017.

    Filed Date: 2/16/17.

    Accession Number: 20170216-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/9/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03563 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9031-8] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 02/13/2017 through 02/17/2017 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20170025, Draft, HUD, NJ, Rebuild by Design Hudson River: Resist, Delay, Store, Discharge Project, Comment Period Ends: 04/10/2017, Contact: Dennis Reinknecht 609-984-7855. The New Jersey Department's of Environmental Protection and Community Affairs is Co-Lead Agency for this project. EIS No. 20170026, Final, USFS, WY, Teton to Snake Fuels Management, Review Period Ends: 03/27/2017, Contact: Steve Markason 307-739-5431. EIS No. 20170027, Final, NMFS, Other, Final Amendment 5b to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 03/27/2017, Contact: Margo Schulze-Haugen 301-427-8503. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160312, Draft, USFWS, CA, City of San Diego Vernal Pool HCP EIS, Comment Period Ends: 02/21/2017, Contact: Dan Cox 916-414-6539. Revision to FR Notice Published 12/30/2016; Correcting Comment Period to end 02/21/2017 not 03/06/2017. EIS No. 20170000, Draft, NOAA, CA, Calam Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, Comment Period Ends: 03/29/2017, Contact: Karen Grimmer 831-647-4253. Revision to the FR Notice Published 01/13/2017; Extending Comment Period from 02/27/2017 to 03/29/2017. Dated: February 21, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03689 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, February 7, 2017 At 10:00 a.m. and its continuation on February 9, 2017.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    STATUS:

    This meeting was closed to the public.

    Federal Register Notice of Previous Announcement—82 FR 10771 CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    This meeting was continued on February 22, 2017.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03801 Filed 2-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT—

    82 FR 11221.

    CHANGE IN THE MEETING:

    The February 23, 2017 meeting was cancelled.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03782 Filed 2-22-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation—Cap Adjustment AGENCY:

    Federal Maritime Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    DATES:

    The Adjusted Cap amount will be effective April 25, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sandra L. Kusumoto, Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing, 202-523-5787, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Final Rule published in the Federal Register (FR) of February 27, 2013 (78 FR 13268), the Director, Bureau of Certification and Licensing is required to calculate the Adjusted Cap amount for Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation and transmit that information to the Commission's Office of the Secretary for publication on the Commission's Web site and in the Federal Register. The cap will automatically adjust every two years after the cap on required financial responsibility reaches $30 million, which it did on April 2, 2015, and will be rounded to the nearest $1 million based on changes in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics's (BLS) Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

    The formula used to determine the percent change is as follows:

    EN24FE17.004 Based on the percent change calculated, the Escalation Formula for the cap adjustment is calculated. The formula uses a Base Cap of $30 million set from April 2, 2015, as the cap upon which all subsequent cap adjustment calculations will be determined. The calculation for the Adjusted Cap is then rounded to the nearest $1 million. The following is the Escalation Formula used to determine the Adjusted Cap: EN24FE17.005

    The index percent change for use in 2017 was calculated to be 1.26 and the Adjusted Cap was calculated to be $30.4 million. The Adjusted Cap rounded to the nearest $1 million is $30 million. For 2017 and 2018, the cap for Financial Responsibility for Indemnification of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation shall remain at $30 million. The next adjustment will be conducted in 2019 and will continue to use $30 million as the Base Cap for adjustment.

    Rachel E. Dickon, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03650 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than March 8, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. Nancy Eiseman Blackburn, Austin, Texas; individually, to retain voting shares of Republic Trinidad Corporation, Houston, Texas, and thereby retain shares of The First National Bank of Trinidad, Trinidad, Colorado. Notificant will retain shares individually and part of the Eiseman Family Group, which controls Republic Trinidad Corporation.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 21, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03672 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

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

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

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 17, 2017.

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

    1. Glacier Bancorp, Inc., Kalispell, Montana; to merge with TFB Bancorp, Inc., Yuma, Arizona, and thereby acquire The Foothills Bank, Yuma, Arizona.

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

    1. Vista Bancshares, Inc., Ralls, Texas and BankCap Equity Fund LLC, BankCap Partners GP, L.P., and BankCap Partners Fund I, L.P., all of Dallas Texas; each a bank holding company, through BankCap Partners Opportunity Fund, L.P., Dallas Texas; to acquire the voting shares of The Hamlin Financial Corporation, and thereby, acquire Hamlin National Bank, both of Hamlin, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 21, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03671 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) IP17-002, Improving HPV Vaccination Coverage among Adolescent Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial of AFIX and Remote Physician-to-Physician Engagement Strategies and IP17-003, Rapid-Cycle Survey Collaborative for Provider Input on Immunization Issues.

    TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, March 15, 2017 (Closed)

    PLACE:

    Teleconference

    STATUS:

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c) (4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION:

    The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Improving HPV Vaccination Coverage Among Adolescent Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial of AFIX and Remote Physician-to-Physician Engagement Strategies”, IP17-002 and “Rapid-Cycle Survey Collaborative for Provider Input on Immunization Issues”, IP17-003.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03628 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Subcommittee

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned subcommittee:

    TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m., EDT, March 21, 2017.

    PLACE:

    This meeting will be held by teleconference.

    STATUS:

    This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the availability of telephone ports. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment, which is tentatively scheduled from 11:15 a.m.-11:20 a.m. EDT. To participate on the teleconference, please dial (855) 644-0229 and enter code 1482483.

    PURPOSE:

    The Subcommittee will provide advice to the CDC Director through the ACD on strategies, future needs, and challenges faced by State, Tribal, Local and Territorial health agencies, and will provide guidance on opportunities for CDC.

    MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION:

    The STLT Subcommittee members will discuss progress on implementation of ACD-adopted recommendations related to the health department of the future, other emerging challenges and how CDC can best support STLT health departments in the transforming health system.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Jose Montero, MD, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, STLT Subcommittee, ACD, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, MS E70, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (404) 498-0300, Email: [email protected] Please submit comments to [email protected] no later than March 17, 2017.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03626 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-0733] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) Follow-up Survey (OMB Control No. 0920-0733, Expiration Date: 8/31/2016)—Reinstatement with Change—National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    NCBDDD promotes the health of babies, children, and adults, with a focus on preventing birth defects and developmental disabilities and optimizing the health outcomes of those with disabilities. As part of these efforts NCBDDD is actively involved in addressing the early identification of hearing loss among newborns and infants. Congenital hearing loss is a common birth defect that affects 1 to 3 per 1,000 live births, or approximately 12,000 children across the United States annually. Studies have shown that children with a delayed diagnosis of hearing loss can experience preventable delays in speech, language, and cognitive development. To ensure children with hearing loss are identified as soon as possible, many states and United States (U.S.) territories have implemented Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) programs and enacted laws related to infant hearing screening. The majority of these EHDI programs have adopted the “1-3-6” plan, which consists of three core goals: (1) Screening all infants for hearing loss before 1 month of age, (2) ensuring diagnostic audiologic evaluation before 3 months of age for those who do not pass the screening, and (3) enrollment in early intervention services before six months of age for those identified with hearing loss.

    Federal support for identifying children with hearing loss began with the Children's Health Act of 2000, which authorized federal programs to support EHDI activities at the state level. Since then, funds have been distributed to states via cooperative agreements from the CDC and grants from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). States are using these federal monies to enhance EHDI programs and develop corresponding tracking and surveillance systems. These systems are intended to help EHDI programs ensure infants and children are receiving recommended hearing screening, follow-up, and intervention services.

    The mission of the CDC EHDI team is for every state and U.S. territory to have a complete EHDI tracking and surveillance system that will help ensure infants and children with hearing loss achieve communication and social skills commensurate with their cognitive abilities. As part of this mission the CDC EHDI team, in collaboration with representatives of state and U.S. territorial EHDI programs, developed seven National EHDI Goals that reflect the “1-3-6 plan” and address integration with the medical home (coordinated care by a medical provider) and development of tracking and surveillance systems to minimize loss to follow-up and loss to documentation. Many of the defined performance indicators for these goals involve obtaining data related to the number of children screened for hearing loss, referred for and receiving follow-up testing (e.g., diagnostic audiologic evaluation) and enrolled in early intervention services.

    The purpose of the revised survey is to obtain annual state data on the performance indicators in a consistent manner, which is needed to assess progress towards meeting the National EHDI goals. In addition, the availability of these data will better enable the CDC EHDI team to provide technical assistance to states and respond to questions by the general public, policy makers, and Healthy People 2020 officials.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • EHDI Program State Program Coordinators Contacted Survey Directions 59 1 10/60 EHDI Program State Program Coordinators who return the survey Survey 57 1 240/60
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03593 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs): CK17-001, “Creation of a Healthcare-Associated Infectious Disease Modeling Network to Improve Prevention Research and Healthcare Delivery”; CK17-002, “Evaluation of Clinical Interventions, Surveillance, and Ecological Factors that Influence the Burden of Human Monkeypox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)”; and CK17-004, “Determining and Monitoring Health Conditions Identified in the Medical Assessment of US-Bound Refugees.”

    Time and Date:

    10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, March 28-29, 2017 (Closed)

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Creation of a Healthcare-Associated Infectious Disease Modeling Network to Improve Prevention Research and Healthcare Delivery”, CK17-001; “Evaluation of Clinical Interventions, Surveillance, and Ecological Factors that Influence the Burden of Human Monkeypox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)”, CK17-002; and “Determining and Monitoring Health Conditions Identified in the Medical Assessment of US-Bound Refugees”, CK17-004.

    Contact Person for More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03647 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee Meeting National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, Announces the Following Meeting Name:

    ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting.

    Time and Date:

    9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EST, March 7-8, 2017

    Place:

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244

    Status:

    Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240 people. We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at http://www.cms.gov/live/.

    Security Considerations:

    Due to increased security requirements CMS has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Attendees will need to present valid government-issued picture identification, and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.

    Attendees who wish to attend the March 7-8, 2017 ICD-10-CM C&M meeting must submit their name and organization by February 24, 2016 for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by the guards to admit visitors to the meeting.

    Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish attend.

    Please register to attend the meeting on-line at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/events/. Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510 or [email protected]), for questions about the registration process.

    Purpose:

    The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a public forum for the presentation of proposed modifications to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification and ICD-10 Procedure Coding System.

    Matters for Discussion:

    Agenda items include:

    March 7-8, 2017 ICD-10-PCS Topics: Cerebral Embolic Protection During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Renal Replacement Therapy Magnetically Controlled Growth Rods Oxidized Zirconium Polyethylene Implant for Hip and Knee Replacement Endovascular Intracranial Thrombectomy Procedures/Techniques Radiotherapeutic Brain Implant Combined Thoracic Arch Replacement and Thoracic Aorta Restriction Occlusion of Left Atrial Appendage Spinal Fusion with Radiolucent Interbody Fusion Device Administration of ZINPLAVA (Bezlotoxumab) Administration of VYXEOS Administration of KTE-C19 (axicabtageneciloleucel) Congenital Anomaly Procedures Resection of the Left Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction and/or Subaortic Membrane(Stenosis) Fontan Completion Procedure, Stage II Alfieri Stitch Valvuloplasty Ligation of Pulmonary Trunk Fluoroscopy of Pulmonary Trunk Modified Blalock-Taussig Shunt Release of Myocardial Bridge Addenda and Key Updates ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Topics: Acute Appendicitis Antenatal Screening Asthma Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Cyclic Vomiting Diverticular Disease of Intestine Encounter for examination of eyes and vision with abnormal findings Fetal Inflammatory Response Syndrome Hepatic Encephalopathy (re-presentation) Lacunar Infarction Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Neonatal Encephalopathy Glasgow Coma Scale, Pediatric Personal History of Mesothelioma and Secondary Mesothelioma Post Endometrial Ablation Syndrome Sickle Cell w/o Acute Chest Syndrome or Splenic Sequestration Surgical Site Infection Types of Myocardial Infarctions (MI) ICD-10-CM Addendum

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Note: CMS and NCHS no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS Web sites prior to the meeting at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/03_meetings.asp#TopOfPage and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm.

    Contact Persons for Additional Information:

    Donna Pickett, Medical Systems Administrator, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, NCHS, 3311 Toledo Road Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, email [email protected], telephone 301-458-4434 (diagnosis); Mady Hue, Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Acute Care, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland, 21244, email [email protected], telephone 410-786-4510 (procedures).

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03627 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of application in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR 15-361, NIOSH Centers of Excellence for Total Worker Health (TWH).

    Time and Date:1:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m., EDT, March 21, 2017 (Closed).

    Place: Via Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “NIOSH Centers of Excellence for Total Worker Health (TWH)”, PAR 15-361.

    Contact Person for More Information: Marilyn Ridenour, B.S.N., M.B.A., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1095 Willowdale Road, Mailstop 1811, Morgantown, WV Telephone: (304) 285-5879, [email protected] .

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03629 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3338-PN] Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Application From the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality for Continued Approval of Its Hospital Accreditation Program AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ) for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for hospitals that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.

    DATES:

    To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-3338-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways:

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on specific issues in this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the “submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3338-PN, P.O. Box 8016, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010.

    Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address only: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-3338-PN, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments to the following addresses:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lillian Williams, (410) 786-8636, Patricia Chmielewski, (410) 786-6899, or Monda Shaver, (410) 786-3410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Background

    Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services from a hospital, provided that certain requirements are met. Section 1861(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as a hospital. Regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to activities relating to the survey and certification of facilities are at 42 CFR part 488. The regulations at 42 CFR part 482 specify the minimum conditions that a hospital must meet to participate in the Medicare program.

    Generally, to enter into an agreement, a hospital must first be certified by a State survey agency as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 482 of our regulations. Thereafter, the hospital is subject to regular surveys by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements

    Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by an approved national accrediting organization that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem those provider entities as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an accrediting organization is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.

    If an accrediting organization is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. A national accrediting organization applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with reasonable assurance that the accrediting organization requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of accrediting organizations are set forth at § 488.5. The regulations at § 488.5(e)(2)(i) require accrediting organizations to reapply for continued approval of its accreditation program every 6 years or sooner as determined by CMS.

    The Center for Improvement in Healthcare Quality (CIHQ's) current term of approval for their hospital accreditation program expires July 26, 2017.

    II. Approval of Deeming Organizations

    Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.

    Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice identifying the national accrediting body making the request, describing the nature of the request, and providing at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.

    The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of CIHQ's request for continued approval of its hospital accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether CIHQ's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare Conditions of Participation (CoPs) for hospitals.

    III. Evaluation of Deeming Authority Request

    CIHQ submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued approval of its hospital accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on December 28, 2016. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 (Application and re-application procedures for national accrediting organizations), our review and evaluation of CIHQ's will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:

    • The equivalency of CIHQ's standards for hospitals as compared with CMS' hospital CoPs.

    • CIHQ's survey process to determine the following:

    ++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.

    ++ The comparability of CIHQ's processes to those of state agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.

    ++ CIHQ's processes and procedures for monitoring a hospital found out of compliance with the CIHQ's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when the CIHQ identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the state survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c).

    ++ CIHQ's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.

    ++ CIHQ's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.

    ++ The adequacy of CIHQ's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.

    ++ CIHQ's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.

    ++ CIHQ's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to assure that surveys are unannounced.

    ++ CIHQ's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require (including corrective action plans).

    IV. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    V. Response to Public Comments

    Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on Federal Register documents, we are not able to acknowledge or respond to them individually. We will consider all comments we receive by the date and time specified in the “DATES” section of this preamble, and, when we proceed with a subsequent document, we will respond to the comments in the preamble to that document.

    Upon completion of our evaluation, including evaluation of comments received as a result of this notice, we will publish a final notice in the Federal Register announcing the result of our evaluation.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Patrick H. Conway, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03556 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1663-N] Medicare Program; Public Meetings in Calendar Year 2017 for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Coding and Payment Determinations AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the dates, time, and location of the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) public meetings to be held in calendar year 2017 to discuss our preliminary coding and payment determinations for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS. These meetings provide a forum for interested parties to make oral presentations or to submit written comments in response to preliminary coding and payment determinations. The discussion will be focused on responses to our specific preliminary recommendations and will include all items on the public meeting agenda. As indicated in this notice, we are reorganizing public meeting content under two main headings: Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents, and Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Accessories; Orthotics and Prosthetics (O & P); Supplies and “Other”.

    DATES:

    Meeting Dates: The following are the 2017 HCPCS public meeting dates:

    1. Tuesday, May 16, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (e.d.t.)

    Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).

    2. Wednesday, May 17, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).

    3. Thursday, May 18, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    (Drugs/Biologicals/Radiopharmaceuticals/Radiologic Imaging Agents).

    4. Wednesday, June 7, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    (Durable Medical Equipment (DME) and Accessories; Orthotics and Prosthetics (O & P); Supplies and “Other”).

    5. Thursday, June 8, 2017, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. e.d.t.

    (Durable Medical Equipment and Accessories; Orthotics and Prosthetics (O & P); Supplies and “Other”).

    Deadlines for Primary Speaker Registration and Presentation Materials: The deadline for registering to be a primary speaker and submitting materials and writings that will be used in support of an oral presentation are as follows:

    • May 2, 2017 for the May 16, 2017, May 17, 2017 and May 18, 2017 public meetings.

    • May 24, 2017 for the June 7, 2017 and June 8, 2017 public meetings.

    Registration Deadline for Attendees that are Foreign Nationals: Attendees that are foreign nationals (as described in section IV. of this notice) are required to identify themselves as such, and provide the necessary information for security clearance (as described in section IV. of this notice) to the public meeting coordinator in advance of the date of the public meeting the individual plans to attend. Registration deadlines for attendees that are foreign nationals are as follows:

    • April 21, 2017 for the May 16, 2017, May 17, 2017 and May 18, 2017 public meetings.

    • May 10, 2017 for the June 7, 2017 and June 8, 2017 public meetings.

    Registration Deadlines for all Other Attendees: All individuals who are not foreign nationals who plan to enter the building to attend the public meeting must register for each date that they plan on attending. The registration deadlines are different for each meeting. Registration deadlines are as follows:

    • May 05, 2017 for the May 16, 2017, May 17, 2017 and May 18, 2017 public meetings.

    • May 26, 2017 for the June 7, 2017 and June 8, 2017 public meeting dates.

    Deadlines for Requesting Special Accommodations: Individuals who plan to attend the public meetings and require sign-language interpretation or other special assistance must request these services in advance of the meeting date, by the following deadlines:

    • May 2, 2017 for the May 16, 2017, May 17, 2017 and May 18, 2017 public meetings.

    • May 24, 2017 for the June 7, 2017 and June 8, 2017 public meetings.

    Requests for Special Accommodation may be made within the on-line registration located at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo or by contacting Judi Wallace at (410)786-3197 or [email protected] or Nathan Helman at (410) 786-4602 or [email protected]When a request for Special Accommodations is made separate from the on-line registration, it is also necessary to complete the online registration to gain access to the facility.

    Deadline for Submission of Written Comments: Written comments and other documentation in response to a preliminary coding or payment determination that are received by no later than the date of the public meeting at which the code request is scheduled for discussion, will be considered in formulating a final coding decision.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: The public meetings will be held in the main auditorium of the central building of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    Submission of Written Comments: Written comments may be sent via regular mail to Judi Wallace, HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C5-09-14, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850; or electronically to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Judi Wallace at (410) 786-3197 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    On December 21, 2000, the Congress passed the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 (BIPA) (Pub. L. 106-554). Section 531(b) of BIPA mandated that we establish procedures that permit public consultation for coding and payment determinations for new durable medical equipment (DME) under Medicare Part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (the Act). In the November 23, 2001 Federal Register (66 FR 58743), we published a notice providing information regarding the establishment of the public meeting process for DME. The procedures and public meetings announced in this notice for new DME are in response to the mandate of section 531(b) of BIPA. As part of HCPCS reform, we expanded the public meeting forum to include all public requests as of the 2005-2006 coding cycle.

    It is our intent to distribute any materials submitted to us to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) workgroup members for their consideration. CMS and the HCPCS workgroup members require sufficient preparation time to review all relevant materials. Therefore, we implemented a 10-page submission limit and firm deadlines for receipt of any presentation materials a meeting speaker wishes us to consider. For this reason, our HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators will only accept and review presentation materials received by the deadline for each public meeting, as specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    II. Meeting Registration A. Required Information for Registration

    The following information must be provided when registering:

    • Name.

    • Company name and address.

    • Direct-dial telephone and fax numbers.

    • Email address.

    • Special needs information.

    A CMS staff member will confirm your registration by email.

    B. Registration Process 1. Primary Speakers

    Individuals must also indicate whether they are the “primary speaker” for an agenda item. Primary speakers must be designated by the entity that submitted the HCPCS coding request. When registering, primary speakers must provide a brief written statement regarding the nature of the information they intend to provide, and advise one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators regarding needs for audio/visual support. To avoid disruption of the meeting and ensure compatibility with our systems, tapes and disk files are tested and arranged in speaker sequence well in advance of the meeting. We will accept tapes and disk files that are received by the deadline for submissions for each public meeting as specified in the DATES section of this notice. Late submissions and updates of electronic materials after our deadline cannot be accommodated.

    Please note CMS' page limit for primary speaker presentation materials. The sum of all presentation materials and additional supporting documentation may not exceed 10 pages (each side of a page counts as 1 page). An exception will be made to the 10-page limit only for relevant studies newly published between the application deadline and the public meeting date, in which case, we would like a copy of the complete publication as soon as possible. This exception applies only to the page limit and not the submission deadline.

    The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The materials must be emailed or postmarked no later than the deadline specified in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals will need to provide 35 copies if materials are delivered by mail.

    2. “5-Minute Speakers”

    To afford the same opportunity to all attendees, 5-minute speakers are not required to register as primary speakers. However, 5-minute speakers must still register as attendees by the deadline set forth under “Registration Deadlines for all Other Attendees” in the DATES section of this notice. Attendees can sign up only on the day of the meeting to do a presentation of up to 5 minutes. Individuals must provide their name, company name and address, contact information as specified on the sign-up sheet, and identify the specific agenda item that they will address.

    C. Additional Meeting/Registration Information

    Please note that all of the CMS' 2017 HCPCS public meetings will begin at 9:00 a.m. each day as noted in the DATES section of this notice.

    The product category reported in the HCPCS code application by the applicant may not be the same as that assigned by us. Prior to registering to attend a public meeting, all participants are advised to review the public meeting agendas at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo which identify our category determinations, and the dates each item will be discussed. Draft public meeting agendas, including a summary of each request and our preliminary decision, will be posted on our HCPCS Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo at least 4 weeks before each meeting.

    Additional details regarding the public meeting process for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS, along with information on how to register and guidelines for an effective presentation, will be posted at least 4 weeks before the first meeting date on the official HCPCS Web site at www.cms.hhs.gov/medhcpcsgeninfo. The document titled “Guidelines for Participation in Public Meetings for All New Public Requests for Revisions to the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS)” will be made available on the HCPCS Web site at least 4 weeks before the first public meeting in 2017 for all new public requests for revisions to the HCPCS. Individuals who intend to provide a presentation at a public meeting need to familiarize themselves with the HCPCS Web site and the valuable information it provides to prospective registrants. The HCPCS Web site also contains a document titled “Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Level II Coding Procedures,” which is a description of the HCPCS coding process, including a detailed explanation of the procedures used to make coding determinations for all the products, supplies, and services that are coded in the HCPCS.

    The HCPCS Web site also contains a document titled “HCPCS Decision Tree & Definitions” which illustrates, in flow diagram format, HCPCS coding standards as described in our Coding Procedures document.

    A summary of each public meeting will be posted on the HCPCS Web site by the end of August 2017.

    III. Presentations and Comment Format

    We can only estimate the amount of meeting time that will be needed since it is difficult to anticipate the total number of speakers that will register for each meeting. Meeting participants should arrive early to allow time to clear security and sign-in. Each meeting is expected to begin promptly as scheduled. Meetings may end earlier than the stated ending time.

    A. Oral Presentation Procedures

    All primary speakers must register as provided under the section titled “Meeting Registration.” Materials and writings that will be used in support of an oral presentation should be submitted to the CMS' HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.

    The materials may be emailed or delivered by regular mail to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The materials must be emailed or postmarked no later than the deadline specified in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals will need to include 35 copies if materials are delivered by mail.

    B. Primary Speaker Presentations

    The individual or entity requesting revisions to the HCPCS coding system for a particular agenda item may designate one “primary speaker” to make a presentation for a maximum of 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes is the total time interval for the presentation, and the presentation must incorporate any demonstration, set-up, and distribution of material. In establishing the public meeting agenda, we may group multiple, related requests under the same agenda item. In that case, we will decide whether additional time will be allotted, and may opt to increase the amount of time allotted to the speaker by increments of less than 15 minutes.

    Individuals designated to be the primary speaker must register to attend the meeting using the registration procedures described under the “Meeting Registration” section of this notice and contact one of the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinators, specified in the ADDRESSES section. Primary speakers must also separately register as primary speakers by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice.

    C. “5-Minute” Speaker Presentations

    Meeting attendees can sign up in-person only on the date of the meeting, on a first-come, first-served basis, to make presentations for up to 5 minutes on individual agenda items. Based on the number of items on the agenda and the progress of the meeting, a determination will be made at the meeting by the meeting coordinator and the meeting moderator regarding how many “5-minute speakers” can be accommodated and whether the 5-minute time allocation would be reduced, to accommodate the number of speakers.

    D. Speaker Declaration

    On the day of the assigned public meeting, and no later than the end of the meeting, all primary speakers and 5-minute speakers must provide a brief written summary of their comments and conclusions to the HCPCS Public Meeting Coordinator.

    Every primary speaker and 5-minute speaker must declare at the beginning of their presentation at the meeting, as well as in their written summary, whether they have any financial involvement with the manufacturers or competitors of any items being discussed; this includes any payment, salary, remuneration, or benefit provided to that speaker by the manufacturer or the manufacturer's representatives.

    E. Written Comments From Meeting Attendees

    Written comments will be accepted from the general public and meeting registrants anytime up to the date of the public meeting at which a request is discussed. Comments must be sent to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Meeting attendees may also submit their written comments at the meeting. Due to the close timing of the public meetings, subsequent workgroup reconsiderations, and final decisions, we are able to consider only those comments received in writing by the close of the public meeting at which the request is discussed.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The meetings are held within the CMS Complex which is not open to the general public. Visitors to the complex are required to show a valid Government issued photo identification at the time of entry. As of October, 10, 2015, visitors seeking access to federal agency facilities using their state-issued driver's license or identification cards must present proper identification issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13, 119 Statute 302, enacted on May 11, 2005) or a state that has received an extension. What constitutes proper identification and whether a driver's license is acceptable identification for accessing a federal facility may vary, based on which state issued the driver's license. For detailed information, please refer to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Web site at: http://www.dhs.gov. When planning to visit a federal facility, visitors who have further questions about acceptable forms of identification are encouraged to contact the facility to determine acceptable identification.

    Visitors will also be subject to a vehicle security inspection before access to the complex is granted. Participants not in possession of a valid identification or who are in possession of prohibited items will be denied access to the complex. Prohibited items on federal property include but are not limited to, alcoholic beverages, illegal narcotics, explosives, firearms or other dangerous weapons (including pocket knives), dogs or other animals except service animals. Once cleared for entry to the complex participants will be directed to visitor parking by a security officer.

    To ensure expedited entry into the building it is recommended that participants have their government ID and a copy of their written meeting registration confirmation readily available and that they do not bring large/bulky items into the building. Participants are reminded that photography on the CMS complex is prohibited. We have also been declared a tobacco free campus and violators are subject to legal action. In planning arrival time, we recommend allowing additional time to clear security. Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The invited guests may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes before the convening of the meeting each day.

    Guest access to the complex is limited to the meeting area, the main entrance lobby, and the cafeteria. If a visitor is found outside of those areas without proper escort they may be escorted off of the premises. Also, be mindful that there will be an opportunity for everyone to speak and we request that everyone waits for the appropriate time to present their product and opinions. Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated and may result in removal from the meetings and escort from the complex. No visitor is allowed to attach USB cables, thumb drives or any other equipment to any CMS information technology (IT) system or hardware for any purpose at any time. Additionally, our staff is prohibited from taking such actions on behalf of a visitor or utilizing any removable media provided by a visitor.

    We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for demonstration or to support a presentation. Special arrangements and approvals are required at least 2 weeks prior to each public meeting to bring pieces of equipment or medical devices. These arrangements need to be made directly with the CMS' Public Meeting Coordinator. It is possible that certain requests made in advance of the public meeting could be denied because of unique safety, security or handling issues related to the equipment. A minimum of 2 weeks is required for approvals and security procedures. Any request not submitted at least 2 weeks in advance of the public meeting will be denied.

    Foreign National Visitors are defined as Non-US Citizens, and non-lawful permanent residents, non-resident aliens or non-green-card holders.

    Attendees that are foreign nationals must identify themselves as such, and provide the following information for security clearance to the public meeting coordinator by the date specified in the DATES section of this notice:

    • Building to Visit/Destination.

    • Visit start date, start time, end date, end time.

    • Visitor full name.

    • Gender.

    • Visitor Title.

    • Visitor Organization/Employer.

    • Citizenship.

    • Birth Place (City, Country).

    • Date of Birth.

    • ID Type (Passport or State Department ID).

    • Passport issued by Country.

    • ID (passport) Number.

    • ID (passport) issue date.

    • ID (passport) expiration date.

    • Visa Type.

    • Visa Number.

    • Purpose of Visit.

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Patrick Conway, Acting Administrator, <E T="03">Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.</E>
    [FR Doc. 2017-03557 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-7044-N] Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Programs; Meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE), March 22, 2017 AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the next meeting of the Advisory Panel on Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Panel advises and makes recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of consumer education strategies concerning the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM,1 Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). This meeting is open to the public.

    1 Health Insurance MarketplaceSM and MarketplaceSM are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. eastern daylight time (e.d.t).

    Deadline for Meeting Registration, Presentations, Special Accommodations and Comments: Wednesday, March 8, 2017, 5:00 p.m., (e.d.t.).

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Room 505A, Conference Room, Washington, DC 20201.

    Presentations and Written Comments: Presentations and written comments should be submitted to: Thomas Dudley, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Communications, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mailstop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 or via email at [email protected]

    Registration: The meeting is open to the public, but attendance is limited to the space available. Persons wishing to attend this meeting must register at the Web site https://www.regonline.com/apoemar2017meeting or by contacting the DFO as listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation or other special accommodations should contact the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Dudley, Designated Federal Official, Office of Communications, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S1-05-06, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, 410-786-1442, email [email protected] Additional information about the APOE is available on the Internet at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/APOE.html. Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education (APOE) (the Panel) is governed by the provisions of Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees. The Panel is authorized by section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)) and section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a) and sec. 10(a) of Public Law 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).

    The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) signed the charter establishing the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education 2 (the predecessor to the APOE) on January 21, 1999 (64 FR 7899, February 17, 1999) to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on the effective implementation of national Medicare education programs, including with respect to the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program added by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).

    2 We note that the Citizen's Advisory Panel on Medicare Education is also referred to as the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (65 FR 4617). The name was updated in the Second Amended Charter approved on July 24, 2000.

    The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) (Pub. L. 108-173) expanded the existing health plan options and benefits available under the M+C program and renamed it the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. We have had substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options available and better tools to evaluate these options. The successful MA program implementation required CMS to consider the views and policy input from a variety of private sector constituents and to develop a broad range of public-private partnerships.

    In addition, Title I of the MMA authorized the Secretary and the Administrator of CMS (by delegation) to establish the Medicare prescription drug benefit. The drug benefit allows beneficiaries to obtain qualified prescription drug coverage. In order to effectively administer the MA program and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, we have substantial responsibilities to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries about the range of health plan options and benefits available, and to develop better tools to evaluate these plans and benefits.

    The Affordable Care Act (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111-148, and Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-152) expanded the availability of other options for health care coverage and enacted a number of changes to Medicare as well as to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Qualified individuals and qualified employers are now able to purchase private health insurance coverage through a competitive marketplace, called an Affordable Insurance Exchange (also called Health Insurance MarketplaceSM or MarketplaceSM). In order to effectively implement and administer these changes, we must provide information to consumers, providers, and other stakeholders through education and outreach programs regarding how existing programs will change and the expanded range of health coverage options available, including private health insurance coverage through the MarketplaceSM. The Panel allows us to consider a broad range of views and information from interested audiences in connection with this effort and to identify opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of education strategies concerning the Affordable Care Act.

    The scope of this panel also includes advising on issues pertaining to the education of providers and stakeholders with respect to the Affordable Care Act and certain provisions of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).

    On January 21, 2011, the Panel's charter was renewed and the Panel was renamed the Advisory Panel for Outreach and Education. The Panel's charter was most recently renewed on January 21, 2017, and will terminate on January 21, 2019 unless renewed by appropriate action.

    Under the current charter, the APOE will advise the Secretary and the Administrator on optimal strategies for the following:

    • Developing and implementing education and outreach programs for individuals enrolled in, or eligible for, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or coverage available through the Health Insurance MarketplaceSM.

    • Enhancing the federal government's effectiveness in informing Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP consumers, issuers, providers, and stakeholders, through education and outreach programs, on issues regarding these programs, including the appropriate use of public-private partnerships to leverage the resources of the private sector in educating beneficiaries, providers, and stakeholders.

    • Expanding outreach to vulnerable and underserved communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of Health Insurance MarketplaceSM, Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP education programs.

    • Assembling and sharing an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers evaluate health coverage options.

    • Building and leveraging existing community infrastructures for information, counseling, and assistance.

    • Drawing the program link between outreach and education, promoting consumer understanding of health care coverage choices, and facilitating consumer selection/enrollment, which in turn support the overarching goal of improved access to quality care, including prevention services, envisioned under the Affordable Care Act.

    The current members of the Panel are: Kellan Baker, Associate Director, Center for American Progress; Robert Blancato, President, Matz, Blancato & Associates; Dale Blasier, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Orthopaedics, Arkansas Children's Hospital; Deborah Britt, Executive Director of Community & Public Relations, Piedmont Fayette Hospital; Deena Chisolm, Associate Professor of Pediatrics & Public Health, The Ohio State University, Nationwide Children's Hospital; Josephine DeLeon, Director, Anti-Poverty Initiatives, Catholic Charities of California; Robert Espinoza, Vice President of Policy, Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute; Louise Scherer Knight, Director, The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Roanne Osborne-Gaskin, M.D., Senior Medical Director, MDWise, Inc.; Cathy Phan, Outreach and Education Coordinator, Asian American Health Coalition DBA HOPE Clinic; Kamilah Pickett, Litigation Support, Independent Contractor; Brendan Riley, Outreach and Enrollment Coordinator, NC Community Health Center Association; Alvia Siddiqi, Medicaid Managed Care Community Network (MCCN) Medical Director, Advocate Physician Partners, Carla Smith, Executive Vice President, Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS); Tobin Van Ostern, Vice President and Co-Founder, Young Invincibles Advisors; and Paula Villescaz, Senior Consultant, Assembly Health Committee, California State Legislature.

    II. Provisions of This Notice

    In accordance with section 10(a) of the FACA, this notice announces a meeting of the APOE. The agenda for the March 22, 2017 meeting will include the following:

    • Welcome and listening session with CMS leadership • Recap of the previous (September 21, 2016) meeting • Affordable Care Act initiatives • An opportunity for public comment • Meeting summary, review of recommendations, and next steps

    Individuals or organizations that wish to make a 5-minute oral presentation on an agenda topic should submit a written copy of the oral presentation to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. Individuals not wishing to make an oral presentation may submit written comments to the DFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by the date listed in the DATES section of this notice.

    III. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    This meeting will be held in a federal government building; therefore, federal security measures are applicable. The Real ID Act, enacted in 2005, establishes minimum standards for the issuance of state-issued driver's licenses and identification (ID) cards. It prohibits federal agencies from accepting an official driver's license or ID card from a state unless the Department of Homeland Security determines that the state meets these standards. Beginning October 2015, photo IDs (such as a valid driver's license) issued by a state or territory not in compliance with the Real ID Act will not be accepted as identification to enter federal buildings. Visitors from these states/territories will need to provide alternative proof of identification (such as a valid passport) to gain entrance into CMS buildings. The current list of states from which a federal agency may accept driver's licenses for an official purpose is found at http://www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. We recommend that confirmed registrants arrive reasonably early, but no earlier than 45 minutes prior to the start of the meeting, to allow additional time to clear security. Security measures include the following:

    • Presentation of government issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.

    • Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.

    • Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means, of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought into CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.

    Note:

    Individuals who are not registered in advance will not be permitted to enter the building and will be unable to attend the meeting. The public may not enter the building earlier than 45 minutes prior to the convening of the meeting.

    All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first floor levels in the Central Building.

    Authority:

    Sec. 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1314(f)), sec. 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), and sec. 10(a) of Pub. L. 92-463 (5 U.S.C. App. 2, sec. 10(a) and 41 CFR 102-3).

    Dated: February 16, 2017. Patrick Conway, Acting Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03598 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On January 4, 2017, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas, during the period from January 1, 1951, through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on February 3, 2017. Therefore, beginning on February 3, 2017, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03676 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Decision To Evaluate a Petition To Designate a Class of Employees From Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Eastern Ventura County, California, To Be Included in the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    NIOSH gives notice of a decision to evaluate a petition to designate a class of employees from Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in eastern Ventura County, California, to be included in the Special Exposure Cohort under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 CFR 83.9-83.12.

    Pursuant to 42 CFR 83.12, the initial proposed definition for the class being evaluated, subject to revision as warranted by the evaluation, is as follows:

    Facility: Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

    Location: Eastern Ventura County, California.

    Job Titles and/or Job Duties: All employees of North American Aviation, including corporate successors and subcontractors, who worked at site Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL).

    Period of Employment: August 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03674 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On January 6, 2017, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area at Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in Ventura County, California, from January 1, 1965, through December 31, 1988, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on February 5, 2017. Therefore, beginning on February 5, 2017, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03675 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (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.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS Initial Review Group; Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Review Committee.

    Date: March 22-23, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Renaissance Arlington Capital View Hotel, Studio F, 2800 S. Potomac Avenue, Arlington, VA 22202.

    Contact Person: Peter R. Jackson, Ph.D., Chief, AIDS Research Review Branch, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G20, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9834, Bethesda, MD 20892-9834, (240) 669-5049, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 21, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03692 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (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.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-262: Sustained Release of Antivirals for HIV Treatment or Prevention.

    Date: March 14, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Fairmont Washington, DC, 2401 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Shiv A. Prasad, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5220, MSC 7852, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-443-5779, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Sciences.

    Date: March 23, 2017.

    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Maria Nurminskaya, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1222, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Diabetes and Obesity.

    Date: March 23, 2017.

    Time: 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michael Knecht, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6176, MSC 7892, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1046, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-GM-17-004: Maximizing Investigators' Research Award for Early Stage Investigators (R35).

    Date: March 27-28, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Elena Smirnova, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5187, MSC 7840, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1236, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Small Business: Drug Discovery for Aging, Neuropsychiatric and Neurologic Disorders.

    Date: March 27-28, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Embassy Suites at the Chevy Chase Pavilion, 4300 Military Road NW., Washington, DC 20015.

    Contact Person: Yuan Luo, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5207, MSC 7846, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-915-6303, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; OBT-AREA Review.

    Date: March 27, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Nywana Sizemore, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6204, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-1718, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: February 21, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03693 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of April 12, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 12, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 1881 W. State Rd. 84, Bay 105, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime measurement.

    Intertek USA, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-06 ASTM D-473 Standard test method for sediment in crude oils and fuel oils by the extraction method. 27-08 ASTM D-86 Standard test method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure. 27-13 ASTM D-4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. 27-48 ASTM D-4052 Standard test method for density and relative density of liquids by digital density meter.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories

    Dated: February 15, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03646 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 20, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The approval of Intertek USA, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on August 20, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 4951A East Adamo Drive, Suite 130, Tampa, FL 33605, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API
  • Chapters
  • Title
    3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 9 Density Determination. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: February 15, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03660 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 21, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 21, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 201 Texas Ave., La Marque, TX 77568, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties Data. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 D287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products. 27-02 D1298 Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method. 27-03 D4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-05 D4928 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-07 D4807 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oil by Membrane Filtration. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 D93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-53 D2709 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge. 27-57 D7039 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories

    Dated: February 15, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03661 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Chem Coast, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 8, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Chem Coast, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on June 8, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Chem Coast, Inc., 11820 North H Street, LaPorte, TX 77571, has approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Chem Coast, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    Chapters Title 3 Tank Gauging 5 Metering 7 Temperature Determination 8 Sampling 12 Calculations of Petroleum Quantities 17 Marine Measurements

    Chem Coast, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-08 ASTM D-86 Standard test method for distillation of petroleum products at atmospheric pressure. 27-48 ASTM D-4052 Standard test method for density and relative density of liquids by digital density meter. 27-50 ASTM D-93 Standard test method for flash point by Penske-Martens Closed Cup Tester. N/A ASTM D-1364 Standard Test Method for Water in Volatile Solvents (Karl Fischer Reagent Titration Method). Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/basic_trade/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/gaulist.ctt/gaulist.pdf. Dated: February 15, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03662 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Amspec Services, LLC, as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that AmSpec Services, LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of May 24, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of AmSpec Services, LLC, as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 24, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that AmSpec Services, LLC, 30 Commercial Dr., Everett, MA 02149, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. AmSpec Services, LLC is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products from the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank Gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurement.

    AmSpec Services, LLC is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 D287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products (Hydrometer Method). 27-02 D1298 Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific Gravity), or API Gravity of Crude Petroleum and Liquid Petroleum Products by Hydrometer Method. 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-14 D2622 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 D93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-53 D2709 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge. 27-54 D1796 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products. Pending D3606 Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. Pending D5599 Standard Test Method for Determination of Oxygenates in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography and Oxygen Selective Flame Ionization Detection. Pending D5769 Determination of Benzene, Toluene, and Total Aromatics in Finished Gasolines by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: February 15, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03645 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4302-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Hoopa Valley Tribe; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Hoopa Valley Tribe (FEMA-4302-DR), dated February 14, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective February 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 14, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with the Hoopa Valley Tribe resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of January 3-5, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists for the Hoopa Valley Tribe and associated lands.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation for the Hoopa Valley Tribe and associated lands. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to Section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation for Public Assistance.

    The Hoopa Valley Tribe is eligible to apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03687 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4297-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Georgia; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 26, 2017.

    Appling, Brantley, Bulloch, Echols, Lowndes, Randolph, Tattnall, Upson, and Ware Counties for Public Assistance.

    Berrien County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03685 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4297-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Georgia; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4297-DR), dated January 26, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 7, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of January 26, 2017.

    Baker, Brooks, Calhoun, Clay, and Crisp Counties for Public Assistance.

    Cook, Dougherty, Thomas, Turner, Wilcox, and Worth Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03681 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4301-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4301-DR), dated February 14, 2017, and related determinations.

    EFFECTIVE DATE:

    February 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 14, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of California resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, and mudslides during the period of January 3-12, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of California.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Sutter, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of California are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.
    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03679 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4293-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Tennessee; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Tennessee (FEMA-4293-DR), dated December 15, 2016, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective February 8, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Lai Sun Yee, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of W. Michael Moore as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03686 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3381-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] California; Emergency and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an emergency for the State of California (FEMA-3381-EM), dated February 14, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective date: February 14, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 14, 2017, the President issued an emergency declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas of the State of California resulting from the potential failure of the emergency spillway at Lake Oroville Dam beginning on February 7, 2017, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (“the Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the State of California.

    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency assistance and administrative expenses.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Timothy J. Scranton, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared emergency.

    The following areas of the State of California have been designated as adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Butte, Sutter, and Yuba Counties for emergency protective measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03680 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4300-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4300-DR), dated February 11, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 11, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Louisiana resulting from severe storms, tornadoes, and straight-line winds on February 7, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Louisiana.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).

    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section 310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed six months after the date of this declaration.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, William J. Doran III, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Livingston and Orleans Parishes for Individual Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Louisiana are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert. J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03690 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4299-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] Oklahoma; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4299-DR), dated February 10, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective February 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 10, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Oklahoma resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of January 13-16, 2017, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of Oklahoma.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, John Long, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of Oklahoma have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Beaver, Beckham, Dewey, Ellis, Harper, Major, Roger Mills, Texas, Woods, and Woodward Counties for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of Oklahoma are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03688 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4298-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001] South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-4298-DR), dated February 1, 2017, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: February 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated February 1, 2017, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of South Dakota resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of December 24-26, 2016, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the “Stafford Act”). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State of South Dakota.

    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.

    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.

    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.

    The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Butte, Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, Dewey, Edmunds, Fall River, Faulk, Grant, Haakon, Hamlin, Harding, Jackson, Jones, Marshall, McPherson, Meade, Pennington, Perkins, Roberts, Stanley, Sully, and Ziebach Counties. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe within Dewey and Ziebach Counties and the Oglala Sioux Tribe within Jackson County for Public Assistance.

    All areas within the State of South Dakota are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    Robert J. Fenton, Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03691 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-6001-N-06] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Harry Messner, Office of Asset Management and Portfolio Oversight, Policy Administration Office, Department of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Harry Messner at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-2626. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Colette Pollard at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Multifamily Project Monthly Accounting Reports

    OMB Approval Number: 2502-0108.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD-93479, HUD-93480, and HUD-93481.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: This information is necessary for HUD to monitor compliance with contractual agreements and to analyze cash flow trends as well as occupancy and rent collection levels.

    Respondents: Business and Other for profit and non-profit entities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 13,646.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 491,256.

    Frequency of Response: Monthly.

    Average Hours per Response: 3.5 hours.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 573,132.

    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: February 10, 2017. Genger Charles, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03522 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-IA-2017-N022; FXIA16710900000-167-FF09A30000] Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. We 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.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: BPHC, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0093” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madonna Baucum, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    This information collection covers permit applications and reports that our Division of Management Authority uses to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties. Service regulations implementing these statutes and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited.

    Information collection requirements associated with the Federal fish and wildlife permit applications and reports are currently approved under three different OMB control numbers: 1018-0093, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23”; 1018-0150, “Renewal of CITES Registration of Commercial Breeding Operations for Appendix I Wildlife and Other CITES Requirements, 50 CFR 17 and 23”; and 1018-0164, “Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17.” In this revision of 1018-0093, we will include all of the information collection requirements associated with all three OMB Control Numbers. If OMB approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Numbers 1018-0150 and 1018-0164.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0093.

    Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority; 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23.

    Form Numbers: FWS Forms 3-200-19 through 3-200-37, 3-200-39 through 3-200-44, 3-200-46 through 3-200-53, 3-200-58, 3-200-61, 3-200-64 through 3-200-66, 3-200-69 to 3-200-70, 3-200-73 through 3-200-76, 3-200-80, and 3-200-85 through 3-200-88.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals; biomedical companies; circuses; zoological parks; botanical gardens; nurseries; museums; universities; antique dealers; exotic pet industry; hunters; taxidermists; commercial importers/exporters of wildlife and plants; freight forwarders/brokers; and State, tribal, local, and Federal governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Regulation/activity Annual
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Annual
  • burden
  • hours *
  • ICs from 1018-0093, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Management Authority, 50 CFR 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23” Import of Sport-Hunted Trophies—Application (Form 3-200-20) 66 69 1 69 Import of Sport-Hunted Trophies of Argali—Application (Form 3-200-21) 118 149 0.75 112 Import of Sport-Hunted Bontebok Trophies from South Africa—Application (Form 3-200-22) 76 77 0.33333 26 Export of Pre-Convention, Pre-Act, or Antique Specimens (CITES, MMPA, and/or ESA)—Application (Form 3-200-23) 113 181 0.75 136 Commercial Export of Live Captive-Born Animals (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-24) 109 326 0.75 245 Export of Raptors (MBTA and/or CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-25) 34 115 1 115 Export of Skins of 7 Native Species: Bobcat, lynx, river otter, Alaskan brown bear, Alaskan black bear, Alaskan gray wolf, and American alligator (CITES) (Form 3-200-26) 45 206 0.33333 69 Export of Wildlife Removed from the Wild (Live/Samples/Parts/Products (CITES))—Application (Form 3-200-27) 52 91 0.75 68 Export of Trophies by Hunters or Taxidermists (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-28) 123 222 0.5 111 Export/Re-export of Wildlife Samples and/or Biomedical Samples (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-29) 114 387 2.5 968 Export/Re-export/Re-import of Circuses and Traveling Animal Exhibitions (and Reissuance) (CITES/ESA)—Application (Form 3-200-30) 24 36 1 36 Annual Report for Exhibition Permittees (Form 3-200-30A) 36 36 0.5 18 Introduction from the Sea (CITES) (Form 3-200-31) 3 3 2 6 Export/Re-export of Plants (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-32) 92 156 1 156 Export of Artificially Propagated Plants—Application (Form 3-200-33) 26 38 2 76 Export of American Ginseng—Application (Form 3-200-34) 49 81 0.33333 27 Import of Wild Collected Appendix 1 Plants (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-35) 1 1 1 1 Export/Import/Interstate and Foreign Commerce of Plants (CITES and/or ESA)—Application (Form 3-200-36) 3 3 1 3 Export/Import/Interstate and Foreign Commerce/Take of Animals (Live/Samples/Parts/Products (CITES and/or ESA)—Application (Form 3-200-37) 146 191 2 382 Certificate of Scientific Exchange/COSE (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-39) 28 28 1 28 Certificate of Scientific Exchange (COSE) Special Reporting Conditions—Report (Form 3-200-39A) 43 43 0.5 22 Export and Re-export of Museum Specimens—Application (Form 3-200-40) 5 5 1 5 ESA Museum Permit Report (Form 3-200-40A) 31 31 0.5 16 Captive-Bred Wildlife Registration/CBW—Application (Form 3-200-41) 61 62 2 124 Captive-Bred Wildlife Registration Annual Report (Form 3-200-41A) 541 541 0.5 221 Import/Acquisition/Transport of Injurious Wildlife—Application (Form 3-200-42) 61 78 1 78 Take/Import/Transport/Export of Marine Mammals or Renewal/Amendment of Existing Permit Application (Form 3-200-43) 14 16 2.33 37 Registration of an Agency/Tannery (MMPA)—Application (Form 3-200-44) 4 4 0.33333 1 Registered Agent/Tannery Inventory Report (Form 3-200-44A) 9 9 1 9 Import/Export/Re-export of Personal Pets (CITES or Wild Bird Conservation Act)—Application (Form 3-200-46) 248 259 0.5 130 Import of Birds for Scientific Research or Zoological Breeding and Display (WBCA)—Application (Form 3-200-47) 12 14 2 28 Import of Birds Under an Approved Cooperative Breeding Program (WBCA)—Application (Form 3-200-48) 5 9 1 9 Approval, Amendment or Renewal of a Cooperative Breeding Program (WBCA) (Form 3-200-49) 5 6 3 18 Approval of Sustainable Use Management Plan (WBCA)—Application (Form 3-200-50) <1 <1 10 <10 Approval of a Foreign Breeding Facility under the WBCA—Application (Form 3-200-51) <1 <1 8 <8 Reissuance, Renewal, or Amendment of a Permit—Application (Form 3-200-52) 326 423 0.25 106 Export/Re-export of Live Captive—Held Marine Mammals (CITES) Application (Form 3-200-53) 1 2 2 4 Supplemental Application for a Retrospectively Issued Document (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-58) 42 42 1 42 American Ginseng Export Program—Report (Form 3-200-61) 19 24 43.5 1,044 Certificate of Ownership for Personally Owned Wildlife “Pet Passport” (CITES)—Application (Form 3-200-64) 26 92 0.5 46 Registration of Appendix I Commercial Breeding Operations (CITES) Application (Form 3-200-65) 1 1 40 40 Replacement Document (CITES,MMPA, WBCA/Lacey Act)—Application (Form 3-200-66) 50 50 0.25 13 Export/Import/Transport of Bald and Golden Eagle for Scientific or Exhibition Purposes (CITES) (Form 3-200-69) 2 2 0.5 1 Export/Re-import/Transport of Bald and Golden Eagle for Indian Religious Purposes (CITES) (Form 3-200-70) 7 7 0.5 4 Re-export of Wildlife (CITES) (Form 3-200-73) 240 1,762 0.5 881 Single Use Export Permits Under a Master File or an Annual Program File (Form 3-200-74) 197 600 0.1 60 Registration of a Production Facility for Export of Certain Native Species Application (Form 3-200-75) 20 25 0.5 13 Export of Caviar or Meat of Paddlefish or Sturgeon Removed from the Wild (CITES) (Form 3-200-76) 13 24 3 72 Export of Fertilized Live Eggs, Caviar, or Meat from Aquacultured Paddlefish or Sturgeon (CITES) (Form 3-200-80) 3 3 3 9 Application to Establish a Master File for the Export of Live Captive-Bred Animals (CITES) (Form 3-200-85) 20 38 1 20 Photography of Marine Mammals Application (Form 3-200-86) 4 5 1.5 8 Transfer/Transport of Live Captive-Held Marine Mammals (Form 3-200-87) 25 25 1 25 Musical Instrument Application (Form 3-200-88) 13 15 0.5 8 Request for Approval of a CITES Export Program (American Ginseng, CITES furbearers, American Alligator) 2 2 12 24 Report for Furbearer CITES Export Programs 52 52 1 52 Report for American Alligator CITES Export Program 10 10 1 10 Participation in the Plant Rescue Center Program—Application 3 3 1 3 Plant Rescue Program—Report on Receipt and Condition of Specimens 195 250 0.5 125 ICs from 1018-0150, “Renewal of CITES Registration of Commercial Breeding Operations for Appendix I Wildlife, 50 CFR 23” Report Take—Grizzly Bears 25 25 0.25 6 Report Take—Mountain Lions 15 15 0.25 4 Marking/Labeling of Vicuna Products, Beluga Sturgeon Caviar, and African Elephant Sport-Hunted Trophies 471 601 0.5 300 Beluga Sturgeon Exemption 1 1 16 16 Wildlife Hybrid Exemption 75 150 0.5 75 Exception to Use of CITES Specimens after Import 250 250 0.5 125 ICs from 1018-0164, “Import of Sport-Hunted African Elephant Trophies, 50 CFR 17” Import of Sport-hunted Trophies of Southern African Leopard, African Elephant, and Namibian Southern White Rhinoceros—Application (Form 3-200-19) 513 548 0.33 182 Total: 4,920 8,522 6,686 * Rounded.

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $840,600.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03586 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R7-MM-2017-N010; FF07CAMM00.FX.ES111607MRG00] Proposed Information Collection; Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We 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.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0066” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request additional information about this IC, contact Madonna Baucum at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Under section 101(b) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), Alaska Natives residing in Alaska and dwelling on the coast of the North Pacific or Arctic Oceans may harvest polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses for subsistence or handicraft purposes. Section 109(i) of the MMPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to prescribe marking, tagging, and reporting regulations applicable to the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft take.

    On behalf of the Secretary, we implemented regulations at 50 CFR 18.23(f) for Alaska Natives harvesting polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses. These regulations enable us to gather data on the Alaska Native subsistence and handicraft harvest and on the biology of polar bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific walruses in Alaska to determine what effect such take may be having on these populations. The regulations also provide us with a means of monitoring the disposition of the harvest to ensure that any commercial use of products created from these species meets the criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the MMPA. We use three forms to collect the information: FWS Form 3-2414 (Polar Bear Tagging Certificates), FWS Form 3-2415 (Walrus Tagging Certificates), and FWS Form 3-2416 (Sea Otter Tagging Certificates). The information we collect includes, but is not limited to:

    • Date of kill.

    • Sex of the animal.

    • Kill location.

    • Age of the animal (i.e., adult, subadult, cub, or pup).

    • Form of transportation used to make the kill of polar bears.

    • Amount of time (i.e., hours/days hunted) spent hunting polar bears.

    • Type of take (live-killed or beach-found) for walrus.

    • Number of otters present in and number of otters harvested from pod.

    • Condition of the polar bear and whether or not bear cubs were present.

    • Name of the hunter or possessor of the specified parts at the time of marking, tagging, and reporting.

    We are proposing to use FWS Form 3-2406 (Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts) to record the collection of bones, teeth, or ivory of dead marine mammals by non-Native and Natives not eligible to harvest marine mammals under the MMPA. It is legal to collect such parts from a beach or from land within a quarter of a mile of the ocean (50 CFR 18.26). The information we collect will include, but is not limited to:

    • Date and location found.

    • Age, sex, and size of the animal.

    • Tag numbers.

    • Name, address, phone number, and birthdate of the collector.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0066.

    Title: Marine Mammal Marking, Tagging, and Reporting Certificates, and Registration of Certain Dead Marine Mammal Hard Parts, 50 CFR 18.23(f) and 50 CFR 18.26.

    Service Form Number(s): 3-2406, 3-2414, 3-2415, and 3-2416.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals and households.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (minutes)
  • Total annual burden hours
    3-2414 (Polar Bear) 25 60 15 15 3-2415 (Walrus) 100 500 15 125 3-2416 (Sea Otter) 75 1,280 15 320 3-2406 (Beach Found) 300 300 15 75 Totals 500 2,140 535
    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03583 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N016; FF09M21200-167-FXMB1231099BPP0] Proposed Information Collection; Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on May 31, 2017. We 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.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0022” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madonna Baucum, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract:

    Our Regional Migratory Bird Permit Offices use information that we collect on permit applications to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in various Federal wildlife conservation laws and international treaties, including:

    (1) Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.).

    (2) Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et seq.).

    (3) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668).

    Service regulations implementing these statutes and treaties are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited.

    All Service permit applications are in the 3-200 series of forms, each tailored to a specific activity based on the requirements for specific types of permits. We collect standard identifier information for all permits. The information that we collect on applications and reports is the minimum necessary for us to determine if the applicant meets/continues to meet issuance requirements for the particular activity.

    Information collection requirements associated with the Federal fish and wildlife permit applications and reports for migratory birds and eagles are currently approved under two different OMB control numbers: 1018-0022, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22,” and 1018-0167, “Eagle Take Permits and Fees, 50 CFR 22.” In this revision of 1018-0022, we are including all of the information collection requirements associated with both OMB Control Numbers. If OMB approves this revision, we will discontinue OMB Control Number 1018-0167.

    II. Data:

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0022.

    Title: Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports—Migratory Birds and Eagles; 50 CFR 10, 13, 21, 22.

    Service Form Number(s): FWS Forms 3-200-6 through 3-200-9, 3-200-10a through 3-200-10f, 3-200-12 through 3-200-16, 3-200-18, 3-200-67, 3-200-68, 3-200-71, 3-200-72, 3-200-77, 3-200-78, 3-200-79, 3-200-81, 3-200-82, 3-202-1 through 3-202-17, 3-186, and 3-186a.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals; zoological parks; museums; universities; scientists; taxidermists; businesses; utilities, and Federal, State, tribal, and local governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion for applications; annually or on occasion for reports.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual burden hours 2
    APPLICATIONS 3-200-6, Import/Export 76 76 1 76 3-200-7, Scientific Collecting 210 210 5 1,050 3-200-8, Taxidermy 690 690 2 1,380 3-200-9, Waterfowl Sale and Disposal 370 370 1.5 555 3-200-10a, Special Purpose Salvage 300 300 1.5 450 3-200-10b, Rehabilitation 175 175 12 2,100 3-200-10c, Education—Live 250 250 4.5 1,125 3-200-10d, Education—Dead 65 65 2.5 163 3-200-10e, Game Bird Propagation 15 15 1.5 23 3-200-10f, Miscellaneous 50 50 2.5 125 3-200-12, Raptor Propagation 55 55 4 220 3-200-13, Depredation 2,700 2,700 1 3.6 7,963 3-200-14, Eagle Exhibition 120 120 5.5 660 3-200-15a, Eagle Indian Religious and First Order 2,000 2,000 1 2,000 3-200-15b, Eagle Indian Religious Reorder 2,700 2,700 .5 1,350 3-200-16, Take of Depredating Eagles 6 6 3.5 22 3-200-18, Take of Golden Eagle Nests 4 4 6.5 26 3-200-67, Special State Canada Goose 1 1 7 7 3-200-68, Renewal of Permit 5,050 5,050 1.5 7,575 3-200-71, Eagle Take (Disturb) 150 150 16 2,400 3-200-72, Eagle Nest Take 50 50 16 800 3-200-71 and 3-200-72, Eagle/Nest Take Amendment 40 40 6 240 3-200-71 and 3-200-72, Eagle Take Programmatic 20 20 452 9,040 3-200-71 and 3-200-72, Eagle Take Programmatic Amendment 3 3 70 210 3-200-77, Native American Eagle Take 10 10 2.25 23 3-200-78, Native American Eagle Aviary 5 5 5 25 3-200-79, Special Purpose Abatement 25 25 2.5 63 3-200-81, Special Purpose Utility 30 30 15 450 3-200-82, Eagle Transport 10 10 1 10 Eagle Take Programmatic Transfer 3 3 40 120 3-200-72, Application—Eagle Nest Take Programmatic 10 10 40 400 3-200-72, Application—Eagle Nest Take Programmatic Amendment 2 2 20 40 REPORTS 3-202-1, Scientific Collecting 580 580 1 580 3-202-2, Waterfowl Sale and Disposal 1,000 1,000 .5 500 3-202-3, Special Purpose Salvage 1,850 1,850 1 1,850 3-202-4, Rehabilitation 1,650 1,650 3 4,950 3-202-5, Possession for Education 1,160 1,160 1.5 1,740 3-202-6, Special Purpose Game Bird 95 95 .5 48 3-202-7, Special Purpose Miscellaneous 125 125 .5 63 3-202-8, Raptor Propagation 425 425 1 425 3-202-9, Depredation 3,000 3,000 1 3,000 3-202-10, Special State Canada Goose 18 18 1 18 3-202-11, Eagle Depredation 125 125 1 125 3-202-12, Acquisition and Transfer Request 2,600 2,600 1.5 3,900 3-202-13, Eagle Exhibition 700 700 1 700 3-202-14, Native American Eagle Aviary 10 10 .5 5 3-202-15, Eagle Take Monitoring & Reporting 990 990 30 29,700 3-202-15, Eagle Take Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping Programmatic 20 20 342 6,840 3-202-16, Eagle Nest Take & Monitoring 40 40 16 640 3-202-17, Avian Injury/Mortality Report 500 500 6 3,000 3-186, Notice of Transfer & Sale of Migratory Waterfowl 12,900 12,900 .25 3,225 3-186a, Migratory Bird Acquisition & Disposition 18,640 18,640 .25 4,660 Total 61,623 61,623 106,656 1 Completion time varies from 1.75 hours for individuals to 3.5 hours for businesses and governments. 2 Rounded.

    Estimated Annual Non-hour Burden Cost: $1,520,525 for permit application fees.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03585 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-RF-2017-N011; FXRS12630900000-167-FF09R81000] Proposed Information Collection; National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We 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.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0102” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madonna Baucum, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, consolidated all refuge units into a single National Wildlife Refuge System (System). It also authorized us to offer visitor and public programs, including those facilitated by commercial visitor and management support services, on lands of the System when we find that the activities are appropriate and compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and the System's mission. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) allows the use of refuges for public recreation when it is not inconsistent or does not interfere with the primary purpose(s) of the refuge. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) (ANILCA) provides specific authorization and guidance for the administration and management of national wildlife refuges within the State of Alaska. Its provisions provide for the issuance of permits under certain circumstances.

    We issue special use permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the management activity or visitor service provided. These permits authorize activities such as:

    • Agricultural activities (haying and grazing, 50 CFR 29.1 and 29.2).

    • Beneficial management tools that we use to provide the best habitat possible on some refuges (50 CFR 30.11, 31.14, 31.16, and 36.41).

    • Special events, group visits and other one-time events (50 CFR 25.41, 25.61, 26.36, and 36.41).

    • Recreational visitor service operations (50 CFR 25.41, 25.61, and 36.41).

    • Guiding for fishing, hunting, wildlife education, and interpretation (50 CFR 25.41 and 36.41).

    • Commercial filming (43 CFR 5, 50 CFR 27.71) and other commercial activities (50 CFR 29.1 and 36.41).

    • Building and using cabins to support subsistence or commercial activities (in Alaska) (50 CFR 26.35 and 36.41).

    • Research, inventory and monitoring, and other noncommercial activities (50 CFR 26.36 and 36.41).

    We use three forms to collect applicant information:

    • FWS Form 3-1383-G (General Activities Special Use Application).

    • FWS Form 3-1383-C (Commercial Activities Special Use Application).

    • FWS Form 3-1383-R (Research and Monitoring Special Use Application).

    The information we collect helps ensure that: (1) Applicants are aware of the types of information that may be needed for permit issuance; (2) requested activities are appropriate and compatible with the purpose(s) for which the refuge was established and the System's mission; and (3) the applicant is eligible or is the most qualified applicant to receive the special use permit.

    We may collect the necessary information in a nonform format (through discussions in person or over the phone, over the Internet, by email, or by letter). In some instances, respondents will be able to provide information verbally. Often, a simple email or letter describing the activity will suffice. For activities (e.g., commercial visitor services, research, etc.) that might have a large impact on refuge resources, we may require applicants to provide more detail on operations, techniques, and locations. Because of the span of activities covered by special use permits and the different management needs and resources at each refuge, respondents may not be required to answer all questions. Depending on the requested activity, refuge managers have the discretion to ask for less information than appears on the forms. However, refuge managers cannot ask for more or different information.

    We issue permits for a specific period as determined by the type and location of the use or service provided. We use these permits to ensure that the applicant is aware of the requirements of the permit and his/her legal rights. Refuge-specific special conditions may be required for the permit. We identify conditions as an addendum to the permit. Most of the special conditions pertain to how a permitted activity may be conducted and do not require the collection of information. However, some special conditions, such as activity reports, before and after site photographs, or data sharing, would qualify as an information collection, and we have included the associated burden in the table below.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0102.

    Title: National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 36.

    Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection.

    Service Form Number(s): FWS Forms 3-1383-G, 3-1383-C, and 3-1383-R.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals and households; businesses and other for-profit organizations; nonprofit organizations; farms; and State, local, or tribal governments.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Form 3-1383-G 1,846 1,846 .5 923 Form 3-1383-C 1,351 1,351 4 5,404 Form 1383-R 770 770 5 3,850 Totals: 3,967 3,967 10,177

    Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: $135,100 for fees associated with applications for commercial use activities ($100.00 × an estimated 1,351 applications).

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03584 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N009; FXMB12310900WHO-178-FF09M26000] Proposed Information Collection; Migratory Bird Surveys AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC) described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017. We 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.

    DATES:

    To ensure that we are able to consider your comments on this IC, we must receive them by April 25, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your comments on the IC to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). Please include “1018-0023” in the subject line of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Madonna Baucum, at [email protected] (email) or (703) 358-2503 (telephone).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the Interior as the key agency responsible for (1) the wise management of migratory bird populations frequenting the United States, and (2) setting hunting regulations that allow appropriate harvests that are within the guidelines that will allow for those populations' well-being. These responsibilities dictate that we gather accurate data on various characteristics of migratory bird harvest. Based on information from harvest surveys, we can adjust hunting regulations as needed to optimize harvests at levels that provide a maximum of hunting recreation while keeping populations at desired levels.

    Under 50 CFR 20.20, migratory bird hunters must register for the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) in each State in which they hunt each year. State natural resource agencies must send names and addresses of all migratory bird hunters to Branch of Harvest Surveys, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, on an annual basis.

    The Migratory Bird Hunter Survey is based on the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program. We randomly select migratory bird hunters and ask them to report their harvest. The resulting estimates of harvest per hunter are combined with the complete list of migratory bird hunters to provide estimates of the total harvest for the species surveyed.

    The Parts Collection Survey estimates the species, sex, and age composition of the harvest, and the geographic and temporal distribution of the harvest. Randomly selected successful hunters who responded to the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey the previous year are asked to complete and return a postcard if they are willing to participate in the Parts Collection Survey. We provide postage-paid envelopes to respondents before the hunting season and ask them to send in a wing or the tail feathers from each duck or goose that they harvest, or a wing from each mourning dove, woodcock, band-tailed pigeon, snipe, rail, or gallinule that they harvest. We use the wings and tail feathers to identify the species, sex, and age of the harvested sample. We also ask respondents to report on the envelope the date and location of harvest for each bird. We combine the results of this survey with the harvest estimates obtained from the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey to provide species-specific national harvest estimates.

    The combined results of these surveys enable us to evaluate the effects of season length, season dates, and bag limits on the harvest of each species, and thus help us determine appropriate hunting regulations.

    The Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey is an annual questionnaire survey of people who obtained a sandhill crane hunting permit. At the end of the hunting season, we randomly select a sample of permit holders and ask them to report the date, location, and number of birds harvested for each of their sandhill crane hunts. Their responses provide estimates of the temporal and geographic distribution of the harvest as well as the average harvest per hunter, which, combined with the total number of permits issued, enables us to estimate the total harvest of sandhill cranes. Based on information from this survey, we adjust hunting regulations as needed.

    II. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1018-0023.

    Title: Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20.

    Service Form Number(s): 3-165, 3-165A through E, 3-2056J through N.

    Type of Request: Revision to a currently approved collection.

    Description of Respondents: States and migratory game bird hunters.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory for HIP registration information; voluntary for participation in the surveys.

    Frequency of Collection: Annually or on occasion.

    Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • Completion
  • time per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program 49 806 185 hours 149,110 Migratory Bird Hunter Survey Form 3-2056J 37,046 37,046 5 minutes 3,087 Form 3-2056K 22,585 22,585 4 minutes 1,506 Form 3-2056L 8,910 8,910 4 minutes 594 Form 3-2056M 11,698 11,698 3 minutes 858 Parts Collection Survey Form 3-165 4,155 93,563 5 minutes 7,797 Form 3-165A 3,590 3,590 1 minute 60 Form 3-165B 1,008 5,545 5 minutes 462 Form 3-165C 445 445 1 minute 7 Form 3-165D 1,050 1,050 1 minute 18 Form 3-165E 880 1,425 5 minutes 119 Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey Form 3-2056N 4,008 4,008 3.5 minutes 234 Totals 95,424 190,671 163,852

    Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: None.

    III. Comments

    We invite comments concerning this information collection on:

    • Whether or not the collection of information is necessary, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

    • The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information;

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

    • Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents.

    Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this IC. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: February 17, 2017. Tina A. Campbell, Chief, Division of Policy, Performance, and Management Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03582 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [16X.LLWO350000.L14400000.PN0000] Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0009 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue the collection of information to request approval from individuals, private entities, and State or local governments seeking leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands administered by the BLM. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved this information collection activity, and assigned it control number 1004-0009.

    DATES:

    The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior (OMB #1004-0009), Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at [email protected] Please provide a copy of your comments to the BLM. You may do so via mail, fax, or electronic mail.

    Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.

    Fax: Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050.

    Electronic mail: [email protected]

    Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0009” regardless of the form of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeffrey Cartwright, at 208-373-3885. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Cartwright. You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).

    As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register on September 22, 2016 (81 FR 65391), and the comment period ended November 21, 2016. The BLM received no comments.

    The BLM now requests comments on the following subjects:

    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

    Please send comments as directed under ADDRESSES and DATES. Please refer to OMB control number 1004-0009 in your correspondence. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The following information pertains to this request:

    Title: Land Use Application and Permit (43 CFR part 2920).

    OMB Control Number: 1004-0009.

    Abstract: Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1732) and regulations at 43 CFR part 2920 authorize the issuance of leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands administered by the BLM. Respondents include individuals, private entities, and State or local governments. A variety of land uses may be authorized under FLPMA Section 302 and 43 CFR part 2920: Commercial filming; advertising displays; commercial or noncommercial croplands; apiaries; livestock holding or feeding areas not related to grazing permits and leases; harvesting of native or introduced species; temporary or permanent facilities for commercial purposes (other than mining claims); ski resorts; construction equipment storage sites; assembly yards; oil rig stacking sites; mining claim occupancy if certain structures are not incidental to the mining operation; and water pipelines and well pumps related to irrigation and non-irrigation facilities. The complexity of the applications can vary widely. Therefore, the burdens to respondents also can vary widely.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Forms: Form 2920-1, Land Use Application and Permit.

    Description of Respondents: Individuals, private entities, and State or local governments seeking leases, permits, and easements for the use, occupancy, or development of public lands.

    Estimated Annual Responses Annually: 407.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping and Hour Burden Annually: 1,597.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping and Non-Hour Cost Burden Annually: $131,760.

    The estimated burdens are itemized in the following table:

    Type of response and CFR citation Number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
  • (column B ×
  • column C)
  • A B C D Land Use Application and Permit, Individuals, 43 CFR part 2920, Form 2920-1 66 1 66 Land Use Application and Permit, State and Local Governments, 43 CFR part 2920, Form 2920-1 45 1 45 Land Use Application and Permit, Private Sector/Typical, 43 CFR part 2920, Form 2920-1 286 1 286 Land Use Application and Permit, Private Sector/Complex, 43 CFR part 2920, Form 2920-1 10 120 1,200 Totals 407 1,597
    Chandra Little, Acting, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Bureau of Land Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03603 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22603; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The State Historical Society of North Dakota, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural item listed in this notice meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the State Historical Society of North Dakota. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the State Historical Society of North Dakota at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Wendi Field Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate a cultural item under the control of the State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck, ND, that meets the definition of an unassociated funerary object under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Item(s)

    Sometime between 1850 and 1931, one cultural item was removed from a gravesite in Lincoln County, GA. Dr. James Grassick, a University of North Dakota physician, collected a stone pipe fragment from a “grave in Lincoln, Georgia” (according to records). Dr. Grassick donated more than 400 Native American items to the State Historical Society on October 26, 1931, from various states, including Georgia. The one unassociated funerary object is a pipe bowl fragment made of steatite. The pipe is likely of the handle or elbow type. Records do not provide any additional information regarding the object's archeological context or provenance.

    In consultation with Native American tribes, State Historical Society officials determined that the museum records actually refer to Lincoln County, GA, which is located on the state's eastern border. The pipe bowl was recovered from what were the traditional lands of the Cherokee Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. The determination of cultural affiliation of the unassociated funerary object is based on geographical, archeological, anthropological, and historical evidence, as well as other expert opinions. The unassociated funerary object is consistent with cultural items typically found in the burial contexts among these three groups. Lincoln County, GA, falls within Creek and Cherokee aboriginal lands ceded in the Treaty of Augusta (1773). Archeological evidence indicates the presence of stone pipes in burials at Middle Mississippi site (Dallas phase), believed to be ancestral to contemporary Creek and Cherokee tribes. They are also found archeologically, associated with adult burials among the Creek and Cherokee. The manufacture of steatite was also known among the Cherokee, and is a practice that continues to the present day. The extant evidence narrows the possibilities for cultural affiliation to modern-day Creek and Cherokee groups, but the lack of information regarding the object's date or provenience does not allow for a more specific determination. The Cherokee Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma have filed a joint claim for the object.

    Determinations Made by the State Historical Society of North Dakota

    Officials of the State Historical Society of North Dakota have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 1 cultural item described above is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Cherokee Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Wendi Field Murray, State Historical Society of North Dakota, 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505, telephone (701) 328-3506, [email protected] by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary object to the Cherokee Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma may proceed.

    The State Historical Society of North Dakota is responsible for notifying the Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas (previously listed as the Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas), Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Kialegee Tribal Town, Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Poarch Band of Creeks (previously listed as the Poarch Band of Creek Indians of Alabama), Seminole Tribe of Florida (previously listed as the Seminole Tribe of Florida (Dania, Big Cypress, Brighton, Hollywood & Tampa Reservations)), Shawnee Tribe, The Chickasaw Nation, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 19, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03624 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22774; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the state of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department professional staff in consultation with representatives of The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 2004, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Gilmore South site (3CT340) in Crittenden County, AR, during Phase III mitigation for the improvements to Highway 63. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department contracted the excavations out to SPEARS, Inc., in West Fork, AR. The human remains were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) for curation in 2009. The human remains were identified as one adult (18-20 years) and female. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT340 indicate these human remains were probably buried during the Transitional Late Woodland/Early Mississippian period (A.D. 700-1200).

    In 2004, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Gilmore North site (3CT341) in Crittenden County, AR, during Phase III mitigation for the improvements to Highway 63. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department contracted the excavations out to SPEARS, Inc., in West Fork, AR. The human remains were transferred to the AAS for curation in 2009. The human remains were identified as two youths of unknown sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CT341 indicate these human remains were probably buried during the Transitional Late Woodland/Early Mississippian period (A.D. 700-1200).

    In 1968, 1969, and 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, 62 individuals were recovered from the Hazel site (3PO6), Poinsett County, AR. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department planned to reroute State Highway 308 which went directly through the Hazel site. The excavations were undertaken by the AAS, and the human remains and associated funerary objects have remained at the AAS's collections since the time of their removal. The human remains were identified as eight infants (less than two years old), 12 children (2 to 12 years), one youth (13 to 18 years), 34 adults (19 to 35 years), two old adults (over 35 years), and five undetermined. The human remains were further identified as eight female, 24 males, and 30 undetermined. No known individuals were identified. The 251 associated funerary objects are 59 whole or partial ceramic vessels, 2 ceramic discs, 1 large body sherd, 16 bone beads, 1 bone gorget, 3 bone awls, 1 deer humerus scraper, 1 antler dagger, 1 raccoon jaw, 1 beaver tooth, 14 conch shell beads, 89 disc-shaped shell beads, 40 pearl-slug shell beads, 7 barrel-shaped shell beads, 2 disc-shaped shell ear ornaments, 2 shell fragments, 1 shell mask gorget, 1 shell spoon, 1 conch shell pendant, 1 willow-leaf knife, 1 biface, 1 ball of red ocher, 1 disc-shaped stone, 1 piece of coarse sandstone, 1 triangular piece of sandstone, 1 cymbal-shaped copper disc, and 1 piece of unidentified chalky material. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Hazel site (3PO6) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during the Parkin Phase (A.D. 1300-1600).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals (84-712, 84-712-1, Burials 1 and 2) were recovered from the Ink Bayou site (3PU252) in Pulaski County, AR. The Ink Bayou site was excavated to mitigate the impacts of construction of a bridge over Ink Bayou. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department contracted the excavations out to the AAS, and the human remains have remained at the AAS's collections since the time of their removal. The human remains consisted of three adults of unknown age, one male and two undetermined. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Ink Bayou site (3PU252) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Plum Bayou Phase (A.D. 750-950).

    For the human remains listed in this notice, geographic affiliation is consistent with the historically documented territory of The Quapaw Tribe of Indians. Archeological evidence is consistent with the documented use of the area by The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department

    Officials of the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 68 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 251 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Kristina Boykin, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, P.O. Box 2261, Little Rock, AR 72203, telephone (501) 569-2079, email [email protected], by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Quapaw Tribe of Indians may proceed.

    The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department is responsible for notifying The Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 24, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03634 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22814; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the state of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d) (3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians. These human remains were inventoried and documented by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Massey Place site (3AR1) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. The two associated funerary objects include two shell tempered bowls (catalog #2014-350-1, 2). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Massey Place site (3AR1) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 900-1500).

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Menard Hodges site (3AR4) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Menard Hodges site (3AR4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Menard Complex (A.D. 1500-1700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Menard Hodges site (3AR4) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Menard Hodges site (3AR4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Menard Complex (A.D. 1500-1700).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Moore Place site (3AR12) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Moore Place site (3AR12) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Old River Landing site (3AR14) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old River Landing site (3AR14) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Wallace site (3AR25) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Wallace site (3AR25) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Roland Mound site (3AR30) in Arkansas County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1977. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Roland Mound site (3AR30) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during either the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Coles Creek Period (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Baker Brothers site (3AR45) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Baker Brothers site (3AR45) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Gibbens site (3AR48) in Arkansas County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1975. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Gibbens site (3AR48) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the late Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were recovered from the Gibbens site (3AR48) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Gibbens site (3AR48) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during the late Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Reback site (3AR66) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Reback site (3AR66) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Rounsaville site (3AR73) in Arkansas County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Rounsaville site (3AR73) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered at the Starr site (3CY449) in Clay County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1996. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Starr site (3CY449) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 900) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2008, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Point Remove site (3CN4) in Conway County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Point Remove Mound site (3CN4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Betty Roach site (3CG4) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Betty Roach site (3CG4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Archaic Period (3000-650 B.C.).

    In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the McDuffee site (3CG21) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the McDuffee site (3CG21) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Weist site (3CG37) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Weist site (3CG37) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Archaic Period (3000-650 B.C.).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Old Town Ridge site (3CG41) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old Town Ridge site (3CG41) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 900-1541).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Frierson #4 site (3CG56) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Frierson #4 site (3CG56) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C-A.D. 950).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Dunkerson site (3CG67) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Dunkerson site (3CG67) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950) or Early Mississippi Period (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Pierre Cache site (3CG78) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Pierre Cache site (3CG78) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Archaic Period (9500-650 B.C.).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Burns site (3CG79) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Burns site (3CG79) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-541).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Burris #2 site (3CG218) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Burris #2 site (3CG218) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the middle Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1350).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 12 individuals were recovered from site 3CG347 in Craighead County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG347 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Archaic Period (3000-650 B.C.).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Krebs Place site (3CG453) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Krebs Place site (3CG453) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the middle Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1350).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CG688 in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG688 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950) or Early Mississippi Period (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CG739 in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG739 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950) or Early Mississippi Period (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Milner site (3CG902) in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Milner site (3CG902) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CG937 in Craighead County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1985. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG937 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C-A.D. 1541).

    In 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CG990 in Craighead County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CG990 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Arnold site (3CW77) in Crawford County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Arnold site (3CW77) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1968 and 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bradley Place site (3CT7) in Crittenden County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bradley Place site (3CT7) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Richard's Bridge site (3CT11/22) in Crittenden County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Richard's Bridge site (3CT11/22) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2015, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Richard's Bridge site (3CT11/22) in Crittenden County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The 47 associated funerary objects include 2 ceramic sherds, 10 shell fragments, 2 shell ear plugs, 3 ceramic vessels, and 30 burned corn kernels (catalog # 2015-347). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Richard's Bridge site (3CT11/22) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the `Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Barton Ranch site (3CT18) in Crittenden County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Barton Ranch site (3CT18) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Ross site (3CT50) in Crittenden County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Ross site (3CT50) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Vernon Paul site (3CS25) in Cross County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Vernon Paul site (3CS25) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Parkin Phase (A.D. 1350-1550).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Rose Mound site (3CS27) in Cross County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Rose Mound site (3CS27) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Parkin Phase (A.D. 1350-1550).

    In 1994 and 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Parkin site (3CS29) in Cross County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Parkin site (3CS29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Parkin site (3CS29) in Cross County, AR. In 2015, these human remains were discovered in the collections of the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Parkin site (3CS29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Wittsburg site (3CS138) in Cross County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Physical anthropologists determined these human remains were from a prehistoric archeological context. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Wittsburg site (3CS138) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3CS256 in Cross County, AR. In 2015, these human remains were discovered in the collections of the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CS256 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the White Oak Mouth/Trotter Place site (3FR4) in Franklin County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1983. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the White Oak Mouth/Trotter Place site (3FR4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3FR274 in Franklin County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1997. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3FR274 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1997, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Walnut Corners Church site (3GE6) in Greene County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Walnut Corners Church site (3GE6) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Sloan/Dalton Field site (3GE94) in Greene County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Sloan/Dalton Field site (3GE94) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Archaic period (9500-650 B.C.).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3JA1 in Jackson County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1972. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3JA1 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3JA456 in Jackson County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3JA456 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from Webb Farm #1 site (3JE2) in Jefferson County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Webb Farm #1 site (3JE2) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Webb Farm #2 site (3JE6) in Jefferson County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1968. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Webb Farm #2 site (3JE6) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Noble Lake site (3JE19) in Jefferson County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Noble Lake site (3JE19) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Walt #1 site (3JE45) in Jefferson County, AR. These remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1993. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Walt #1 site (3JE45) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Coles Creek Phase (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Greer site (3JE50) in Jefferson County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Greer site (3JE50) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during either the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3JE62 in Jefferson County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3JE62 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950).

    In 1972 and 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3LW44 in Lawrence County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LW44 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Middle Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1350).

    In 2015, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3LW809 in Lawrence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LW809 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1983, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Barrett site (3LE3) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Barrett site (3LE3) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Soudan site (3LE5) in Lee County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Soudan site (3LE5) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Middle Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1350).

    In 1970, 1984, and 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Soudan site (3LE5) in Lee County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Soudan site (3LE5) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Middle Mississippi Period (A.D. 1000-1350).

    In 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Kent site (3LE8) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Kent site (3LE8) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 1988 and 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Clay Hill site (3LE11) in Lee County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Clay Hill site (3LE11) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Clay Hill site (3LE11) in Lee County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1970. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Clay Hill site (3LE11) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 900-1500) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Starkley site (3LE17) in Lee County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Starkley site (3LE17) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Conner site (3LE18) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Conner site (3LE18) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Carnes site (3LE29) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Carnes site (3LE29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Parson site (3LE50) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Parson site (3LE50) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Troublesome Lake site (3LE128) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Troublesome Lake site (3LE128) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) to Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Peters Church site (3LE130) in Lee County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Peters Church site (3LE130) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Haynes Bluff site (3LE245) in Lee County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1987. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Haynes Bluff site (3LE245) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3LE286 in Lee County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LE286 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541) or Kent Phase (A.D. 1350-1600).

    In 2013, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were excavated from the Toltec Mounds site (3LN42) in Lonoke County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Toltec Mounds site (3LN42) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Plum Bayou Phase (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1994 and 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from site 3LO12 in Logan County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3LO12 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the River Mountain Indian site (3LO31) in Logan County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1971. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the River Mountain Indian site (3LO31) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2013, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Toltec Mounds site (3LN42) in Lonoke County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Toltec Mounds site (3LN42) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Plum Bayou Culture (A.D. 700-1000).

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Upper Nodena site (3MS4) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Upper Nodena site (3MS4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland (A.D. 600-950), Early Mississippi periods (A.D. 700-1000), or Nodena Phase (A.D. 1400-1650).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS25 in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS25 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Friend Levee site (3MS69) in Mississippi County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2009. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Friend Levee site (3MS69) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bradbury site (3MS100) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bradbury site (3MS100) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bradbury site (3MS100) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bradbury site (3MS100) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2005, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Eaker site (3MS105) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Eaker site (3MS105) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2006, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Eaker site (3MS105) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Eaker site (3MS105) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Barfield's Landing site (3MS109) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Barfield's Landing site (3MS109) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS111 in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS111 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MS441 in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MS441 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2001, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bo site (3MS631) in Mississippi County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bo site (3MS631) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered near Blytheville in Mississippi County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1998. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Mississippi County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1970, 1978, and 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Baytown site (3MO1) in Monroe County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Baytown site (3MO1) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Webster's Camp site (3MO3) in Monroe County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1968. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Webster's Camp site (3MO3) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Green River site (3MO55) in Monroe County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Green River site (3MO55) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Walnut Ridge/Brinker Place site (3MO61) in Monroe County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1983. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Walnut Ridge/Brinker Place site (3MO61) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Bank of Brinkley site (3MO72) in Monroe County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1998. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bank of Brinkley site (3MO72) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Dupree site (3PH1) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Dupree site (3PH1) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Dupree site (3PH1) in Phillips County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Dupree site (3PH1) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Moore site (3PH7) in Phillips County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Moore site (3PH7) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Old Town site (3PH20) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old Town site (3PH20) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Shadden site (3PH39) in Phillips County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1990. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Shadden site (3PH39) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Eloise Toney site (3PH42) in Phillips County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1990. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Eloise Toney site (3PH42) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered at site 3PH45 in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3PH45 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Old Town Lake site (3PH48) in Phillips County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1990. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old Town Lake site (3PH48) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Marksville Period (100 B.C.-A.D. 400).

    In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the College site (3PH53) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the College site (3PH53) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Montgomery #2 site (3PH60) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Montgomery #2 site (3PH60) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Chip Franklin site (3PH65) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Chip Franklin site (3PH65) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1972 and 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Martin site (3PH126) in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Martin site (3PH126) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1977, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3PH153 in Phillips County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3PH153 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2015, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Potter's Field site (3PO2/23) in Poinsett County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Potter's Field site (3PO2/23) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1974 and 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Miller site (3PO24) in Poinsett County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Miller site (3PO24) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi (A.D. 900-1541) or Parkin Phase (A.D. 1300-1600).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Roby Cooper Place site (3PO40) in Poinsett County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1974. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Roby Cooper Place site (3PO40) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Hubbard #2 site (3PO146) in Poinsett County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2013. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Hubbard #2 site (3PO146) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered near Marked Tree in Poinsett County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Poinsett County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 19 individuals were recovered from the Howell Farm site (3PP17) in Pope County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from the Howell Farm site (3PP17) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    In 1972 and 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Fowler's Point/Mulberry Hill site (3PR21) in Prairie County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Fowler's Point/Mulberry Hill site (3PR21) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Fowler's Point/Mulberry Hill site (3PR21) in Prairie County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1987. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Fowler's Point/Mulberry Hill site (3PR21) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1972 and 2011, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Sanner-Ferguson site (3PR22) in Prairie County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Sanner-Ferguson site (3PR22) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bull Farm #1 site (3PR26) in Prairie County, AR. No known individual was identified. The one associated funerary object is one Winterville incised ceramic fragment (catalog # 78-1216-1). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bull Farm #1 site (3PR26) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Honey Creek site (3PR28) in Prairie County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Prairie County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Rattlesnake Rest site (3PR48) in Prairie County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1983. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Rattlesnake Rest site (3PR48) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Plunkett C-9 site (3PR97) in Prairie County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Plunkett C-9 site (3PR97) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    In 2008 and 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, 20 individuals were recovered from the Isgrig site (3PU15) in Pulaski County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The 45 associated funerary objects include 26 ceramic vessels, 15 arrow points, and 4 deer ulna awls. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Isgrig site (3PU15) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1990, human remains representing, at minimum, 25 individuals were recovered from the Kuykendall Brake site (3PU111) in Pulaski County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Kuykendall Brake site (3PU111) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Menard Complex (A.D. 1500-1700).

    In 1995, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the County Dairy Farm site (3PU163) in Pulaski County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the County Dairy Farm site (3PU163) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland Period (A.D. 600-950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3PU473 in Pulaski County, AR. These human remains were sent to the Arkansas Archeological Survey from the state Medical Examiner at an unknown date. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts from site 3PU473 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2012, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Grigsby site (3RA262) in Randolph County, AR. No known individual was identified. In accordance with Arkansas State Law, these human remains were reburied at the Grigsby site (3RA262) at an unknown date. The 1,866 associated funerary objects include 1,841 glass beads, 6 metal fragments, 1 metal kettle, 8 metal beads, 2 tinkling cones, 2 iron knives, 4 iron coils, 1 metal spoon, and 1 coil bracelet. These diagnostic artifacts indicate that the associated human remains were probably originally buried during the Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1541-1700).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Big Eddy site (3SF9) in St. Francis County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Big Eddy site (3SF9) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Big Eddy site (3SF9) in St. Francis County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2014. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Big Eddy site (3SF9) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Castile Landing site (3SF12) in St. Francis County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Castile Landing site (3SF12) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were recovered from the Manley site (3SF25) in St. Francis County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Manley site (3SF25) indicate that these remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, seven individuals were recovered from the Soc site (3WH34) in White County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Soc site (3WH34) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3WH73 in White County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1970. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts at site 3WH73 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Glaze Creek Access site (3WH168) in White County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts at the Glaze Creek Access site (3WH168) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Baytown Period (A.D. 400-700).

    In 1989, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3WH462 in White County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts at site 3WH462 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1983, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered near Augusta in White County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found near Augusta in White County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Old Barn site (3WO239) in Woodruff County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old Barn site (3WO239) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Mississippi Period (A.D. 1350-1650).

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Delaware Creek site (3YE6) in Yell County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Delaware Creek site (3YE6) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Bullock site (3YE20) in Yell County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1970. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bullock site (3YE20) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Carden Bottoms site (3YE25) in Yell County, AR. No known individual was identified. The 3 associated funerary objects include 3 tubular shell beads (92-380-51, -56). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Carden Bottoms site (3YE25) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Mississippi Period (A.D. 1350-1650).

    In 1991 and 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3YE347 in Yell County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3YE347 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Mississippi Period (A.D. 1350-1650).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Cache River in Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found along the Cache River indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1500).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from an unknown location in Northeast Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northeast Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1500).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from Willshand Farms in Northeast Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at Willshand Farms indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Atkins Bottoms site in Pope County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Atkins Bottoms site indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1500).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from Memphis, Crittenden County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in the Memphis, AR, vicinity indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Northeast Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northeast Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Northeast Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1968. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northeast Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in White County, AR, by the State Medical Examiner. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in White County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in St. Francis County, AR, by the State Medical Examiner. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in St. Francis County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Mississippi County, AR, by the State Medical Examiner. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Mississippi County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    This notice includes a variety of terms commonly used in discussions of Arkansas archeology and the historical trajectories that gave rise to specific Native American communities identified in the historical record. Based on the archeological context for these sites and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Quapaw and occupied the sites listed in this notice, the Arkansas Archeological Survey has determined the human remains listed in this notice are culturally affiliated with The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 276 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 1,964 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to and associated funerary objects to The Quapaw Tribe of Indians may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying The Quapaw Tribe of Indians that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 27, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03617 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22813; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes. Representatives of any Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR. The human remains were removed from unknown locations in the state of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe. These human remains were inventoried and documented by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (75 FSN 182) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at an unknown date. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (85-814) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1985. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals (85-812) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1985. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (94-1046) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (94-603) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals (97-734-1 to -5) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1997. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals (97-735) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1997. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (98-687 and 98-688) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1998. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (94-1019) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (92-1343) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1992. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals (95-929) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1995. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals (95-930) were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1995. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (2011-503-116) were recovered from an unknown location in Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2011. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals (2015-613, 667) were recovered from an unknown location in Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual (2015-673) were recovered from an unknown location in Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present.

    On occasion, the Arkansas Archeological Survey has received human remains that have been unaccompanied by any information about the location of discovery beyond the state of Arkansas. Diagnostic artifacts found in the state of Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541). Inspection and documentation by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas indicate that these human remains are of an age and character to be identified as the remains of individuals who were buried in now unknown locations at least three centuries ago. The preponderance of evidence indicates that these are Native Americans who resided in Arkansas during the Prehistoric period.

    Current research indicates that the earliest Paleoindian migrants were present in Arkansas in the waning centuries of the Pleistocene. Diagnostic Clovis and affiliated projectile points found in the state demonstrate that this residence began at least 11,600 years ago. Native people continued to reside in all parts of Arkansas through the end of the Prehistoric period which is marked at A.D. 1541 with the arrival of Spanish explorers on the Hernando DeSoto expedition.

    Since none of the human remains enumerated in this NIC can be traced to a known archeological site, it is not possible to make a determination with regard to their potential affiliation with any of the Indian tribes with whom the Arkansas Archeological Survey engages in consultation.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on inspection and documentation by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 31 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian tribe and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), The Quapaw Tribe of Indians, and Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 27, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03633 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-0022767; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Vanderbilt University has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to Vanderbilt University. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Vanderbilt University at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Arrin Richards, Assistant General Counsel, Vanderbilt University, 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 750, Nashville, TN 37203, telephone (615) 322-5157, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Vanderbilt University. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Arnold Village site in Brentwood, Williamson County, TN.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed inventory of the human remains was made by Vanderbilt University Associate Professor of Anthropology, Tiffiny A. Tung. An assessment of the human remains was made in consultation with Professor Tiffiny Tung, Professor Beth Conklin (Chair of the Department of Anthropology), Arrin Richards (Vanderbilt University Counsel), and representatives of the Cherokee Nation, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, The Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.

    History and Description of the Remains

    Between 1966 and 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, 208 individuals were removed from the Arnold Village site in Williamson County, TN. The Southeastern Indian Antiquities Survey Inc. (SIAS) excavated the site when it “was threatened with partial destruction” (Ferguson 1972: page 5) by the planned construction of homes. The Ferguson report indicates that the ceramic sherds from Burial #38 were transferred to the University of Tennessee (presumably at Knoxville) (Ferguson 1972: page 30), and Charles Nash (from Memphis State University) also examined the Arnold site ceramics, suggesting that some ceramics may have been transferred to Memphis State University. Excavations at the Arnold site uncovered the remnants of 17 ancient house structures and 151 graves of the “stone box” style (i.e., the tomb is made of upright stone slabs laid in a rectangular shape, wide at the upper end and narrow at the lower end). No known individuals were identified. The 2 associated funerary objects are two ceramic artifacts. Other associated funerary objects reported by Ferguson are not under the control of Vanderbilt University. The associated funerary objects were determined to be what archeologists term the “Middle Cumberland Culture,” which falls within the “Mississippian period,” a chronology that places the human remains and associated funerary objects squarely within the pre-contact era. This chronology is further supported by a radiocarbon date from a femur bone fragment. Available evidence suggests that the Arnold site dates to A.D. 1250, plus or minus approximately 100 years. Additional evidence that the human skeletons are Native American is the shovel-shaped incisors (a dental trait interpreted by archaeologists as biological evidence of Native American affiliation) and cranial modification (an earlier cultural practice affiliated with Native American identity).

    Determinations Made by Vanderbilt University

    Officials of Vanderbilt University have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the archeological context and radiocarbon dating.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 208 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), 2 ceramic objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • The Treaty of 1805 indicates that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Arrin Richards, Assistant General Counsel, Vanderbilt University, 2100 West End Avenue, Suite 750, Nashville, TN 37203, telephone (615) 322-5157, email [email protected], by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians may proceed.

    Vanderbilt University is responsible for notifying the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Chickasaw Nation, and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 19, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03612 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0022684; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, Anchorage, AK AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Alaska Region, has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organization. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization, not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Alaska Region USFWS. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Alaska Region USFWS at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Edward J. DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 786-3399, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Alaska Region USFWS. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from site MT-1, Mikisagmiut Bay, Nunivak Island, AK.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Alaska Region USFWS professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Native Village of Mekoryuk, the NIMA Corporation, and the Calista Corporation.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site MT-1 (now known as site 49-XNI-032), Mikisagmiut Bay, Nunivak Island, AK, during excavations by University of Oregon archeologists. No known individuals were identified. The seven associated funerary objects include one awl, one bone tube, two shaped bones, one ivory labret, one plain gravel-tempered potsherd, and one bone line shuttle or sled runner.

    Nunivak Island is traditional territory of the Central-Yup'ik-speaking Nunivak Eskimo or Nuniwarmiut people. Oral tradition and archeological investigations indicate that Nunivak Island was peopled at least 2600 years ago and most likely continuously occupied by descendants of the initial population. The nature of the funerary artifacts suggests a late prehistoric age for the burials. The human remains are thought to represent a woman, most likely a young adult. The human remains and associated artifacts were transferred to the University of Oregon Museum of Natural and Cultural History in 2005 by the archeologist responsible for collecting them.

    Determinations Made by the Alaska Region USFWS

    Officials of the Alaska Region USFWS have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the seven objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Nuniwarmiut people of Alaska and Native Village of Mekoryuk.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wishes to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Edward DeCleva, Regional Historic Preservation Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Region, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS-235, Anchorage, AK 99503, telephone (907) 786-3399, email [email protected], by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Nuniwarmiut people and Native Village of Mekoryuk may proceed.

    Alaska Region USFWS is responsible for notifying the Nuniwarmiut people and Native Village of Mekoryuk that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 6, 2017 Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03608 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22751; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the state of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains were made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians. These human remains were inventoried and documented by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Galatia Shelter site (3BA5) in Baxter County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Galatia Shelter site (3BA5) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Galatia Shelter site (3BA5) in Baxter County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1997. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Galatia Shelter site (3BA5) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Elmo Hurst Indian Grave site (3BA65) in Baxter County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1975. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at Elmo Hurst Indian Grave site (3BA65) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Sheep Cave site (3BE42) in Benton County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Sheep Cave site (3BE42) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950 to 1541).

    In 1979, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Butler Shelter #2 site (3BE205) in Benton County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Butler Shelter #2 site (3BE205) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Eagle's Nest Bottom site (3BE243) in Benton County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Eagle's Nest Bottom site (3BE243) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1986, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the War Eagle Creek site (3BE486) in Benton County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the War Eagle Creek site (3BE486) indicate that these remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Boone County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1993. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Boone County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2016, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Boone County, Arkansas. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent by the state Medical Examiner and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Boone County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Blue Springs Shelter site (3CR4) in Carroll County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Blue Springs Shelter site (3CR4) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Berryville site (3CR91) in Carroll County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Berryville site (3CR91) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the David Land site (3CR260) in Carroll County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1993. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the David Land site indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from Carroll County, AR. These human remains were determined to be of Native American ancestry after being taken to the state crime lab and were then donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1992. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. These human remains were buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1975, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Beaver Pond and Bluffs site (3CW11) in Crawford County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from the Beaver Pond and Bluffs site (3CW11) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3FA118 in Faulkner County, AR. These human remains were found on premises in 2015. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3FA118 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2008, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Blackhawk I site (3IN6) in Independence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Blackhawk I site (3IN6) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3IN11 in Independence County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3IN11 in Independence County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Harter Knoll site (3IN54) in Independence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Harter Knoll site (3IN54) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2002, human remains representing, at minimum, 11 individuals were recovered from the Gardner #2 site (3IN505) in Independence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Gardner #2 site (3IN505) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 2002, human remains representing, at minimum, 15 individuals were recovered from the Gardner site (3IN680) in Independence County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The one associated funerary object includes one bone tool (2002-600). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Gardner site (3IN680) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Independence County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Independence County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the area of Calico Rock in Izard County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1985. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Izard County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from an unknown site in Johnson County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1985. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Johnson County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from an unknown site in Madison County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Madison County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown site in Madison County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1975. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Madison County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, possibly 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Turner Cave site (3MA20-83) in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Turner Cave site (3MA20-83) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Loy Watson #2 site (3MA53) in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Loy Watson #2 site (3MA53) indicate that these human remains were probably during the Archaic period (9500-650 B.C.).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals from the Kings River site (3MA113) in Madison County, AR, were transferred from the University of Arkansas to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site (MA113) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1980, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MA120 in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MA120 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3MA127 in Madison County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MA127 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C-950 A.D).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3MA158 in Madison County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1981. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3MA158 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Cowcreek site (3MR33) in Marion County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Cowcreek site (3MR33) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1968, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the White Eagle site (3MR53) in Marion County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the White Eagle site (3MR53) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the White Eagle site (3MR53) in Marion County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1968. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the White Eagle site (3MR53) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were recovered from the Clear Creek Cave site (3MR77) in Marion County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1996. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Clear Creek Cave site (3MR77) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Kading site in Marion County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Marion County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3NW14 in Newton County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3NW14 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1969 and 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Old Saltpeter's Cave site (3NW29) in Newton County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The three associated funerary objects include one nutting stone and two projectile points (70-105). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Old Saltpeter's Cave site (3NW29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3NW405 in Newton County, AR. These remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1971. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3NW405 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3NW408 in Newton County, AR. These remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1971. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3NW408 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown site in Newton County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. These human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1982, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were recovered from the George W. Cheek estate site (3PP105) in Pope County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts recovered from the George W. Cheek estate site (3PP105) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown site in Searcy County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1994. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. These human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1978, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the White Bluff site (3SE26) in Searcy County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. These human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Bixler Hole Shelter in Van Buren County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at Bixler Hole Shelter indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Brown's Bluff site (3WA10) in Washington County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. These human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1973, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Blue Springs site (3WA122) in Washington County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Blue Springs site (3WA122) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1969, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Lynch site (3WA143) in Washington County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Lynch site (3WA143) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1988, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3WA823 in Washington County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3WA823 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 1981, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3WH276 in White County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts at site 3WH276 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Mississippi Period (A.D. 950-1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in the state of Arkansas. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Northwest Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    This notice includes a variety of terms commonly used in discussions of Arkansas archeology and the historical trajectories that gave rise to specific Native American communities identified in the historical record. Based on the archeological context for these sites and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Osage and occupied the sites listed in this notice, the Arkansas Archeological Society has determined the human remains listed in this notice are culturally affiliated with The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 107 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the four objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe).

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe) that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 17, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03616 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22827; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, Monterey, CA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Colonel Lawrence Brown, Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, 1759 Lewis Road, Suite 210, Monterey, CA 93944-3223, email [email protected], telephone (831) 242-7926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, Monterey, CA. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Presidio of Monterey, Monterey County, CA.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey professional staff, with the assistance of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, Mandatory Center of Expertise in the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, and in consultation with representatives of Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California, and the following non-federally recognized Indian group: Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation. The Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California was also invited to consult but chose to not participate.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In 1910, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were purportedly collected by an individual named Heath in the vicinity of El Castillo, site CA-MNT-101, in Monterey County, CA. A.R. Pilling stated that Heath gave him the human remains when Pilling donated them to the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, in 1947. The human remains were identified as two adult males and one sub-adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1947 and 1953, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, were found by A.R. Pilling at the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, stored within faunal collections associated with El Castillo (CA-MNT-101), Monterey County, CA. The human remains were identified as one adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1960, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual, were purportedly collected from the vicinity of El Castillo (CA-MNT-101), Monterey County, CA. The human remains were donated to the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, Pacific Grove, CA by Donald Howard. The catalog card states that the human remains were from “the Presidio of Monteray (sic) near the intersection of Foam and Lighthouse above the cliff.” The human remains were identified as an adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    In 1967, human remains representing, at minimum, nine individuals, were excavated from El Castillo (CA-MNT-101), Monterey County, CA. The excavations resulted from a proposal to establish a State Park or Monument at El Castillo, for which the CA Department of Parks and Recreation and the National Park Service contracted the Central California Archaeological Foundation to survey and excavate the proposed site. Collections from the excavation were curated at the California State Parks, Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Museum Resource Center, now titled the California Statewide Museum Collections Center, McClellan, CA. The human remains were identified as three adults (one male, one female and one of indeterminate sex), two sub-adults of indeterminate sex and four infants of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 122 associated funerary objects include: 1 andesite chipped stone scrapper or preform, 2 complete hammer stones (1 is basalt), 1 gray chert core, 1 antler flaking tool (burned), 1 incomplete antler tool, 1 fragmented antler tine, 3 Olivella shell bead fragments, 1 shell fishhook fragment, 1 possible Haliotis ornament preform, 1 fragmented clam shell ornament, 19 unmodified mammal bones, 4 unmodified bird bones, 3 unmodified fish bones, 3 unmodified crustacean shells, and 80 unmodified shells (including fragments of Haliotis, Olivella and Turban and few complete Haliotis, some of which may be modified).

    In 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were excavated from El Castillo (CA-MNT-101), Monterey County, CA. The archeological test excavations were conducted by Archaeological Consulting and Research Services to determine the effect on cultural resources of a proposed easement along Lighthouse Avenue, with a connection to Van Buren Street. The collection was originally stored at Fort Ord, Seaside, CA. In 1994, Cultural Resources Management Services (CRMS) inventoried archeological collections from the Presidio of Monterey. These collections were temporarily stored at their laboratory in Paso Robles, CA until they were moved to the San Diego Archaeological Center, Escondido, CA in 2003. The human remains were identified as one adult and one sub-adult of indeterminate sex. No known individuals were identified. The 188 associated funerary objects include: 3 chert projectile points, 1 granite and 1 metavolcanic hammerstone, 4 granite pestle fragments, 1 chert and 1 metavolcanic chopper, 1 siltstone scrapper, 10 biface fragments, 67 chipped stone debitage, 2 bone awl tips, 6 Mytilus fish hook fragments, 30 Olivella shell beads, 12 Haliotis shell pendant fragments, 1 modified Mytilus shell fragment, and 48 unmodified Olivella shell and shell fragments.

    In the 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were excavated from CA-MNT-932, Monterey County, CA. The excavations were undertaken by Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. to evaluate the site's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The collection was originally curated at San Jose State University, Department of Anthropology, San Jose, CA. In 1994, CRMS inventoried archeological collections from the Presidio of Monterey and stored them at their laboratory in Paso Robles, CA, until they were moved to the SDAC, Escondido, CA in 2003. SDAC inventoried the collection, and only at that time was the bone material in the collection positively identified as human. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.

    Determinations Made by the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey

    Officials of the United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on morphological characteristics and the archeological context of the sites from which they were removed.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 17 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 310 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.

    • A treaty signed in 1851 identified Indian lands to be ceded to the United States in exchange for compensation, and included the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice were removed. That treaty was one of 18 such treaties between the United States and Indian entities in California that were negotiated and signed in 1851 and 1852, wherein certain Indian lands were ceded to the U.S. in exchange for compensation. On July 8, 1852, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify any of those 18 treaties. Nonetheless, the United States proceeded to take the lands to be ceded, but without paying compensation.

    • According to the California Indians Jurisdictional Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 602), Congress declared that the uncompensated taking of these lands, including the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice were removed, provided grounds for granting equitable relief to descendants of the Indian entities that signed those treaties.

    • According to a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission (8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 39a) and a final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims (102 Ct. C1. 837), the Indian entities in California that signed those 18 treaties held aboriginal title to the lands to be ceded, including the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice were removed. Consequently, the Court and the Commission awarded compensation to the descendants of the Indian entities that signed those treaties.

    • The present-day Indian tribes that are descended from the Indian entities that signed the 1851 treaty ceding the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects listed in this notice were removed are the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

    • According to an Act of Congress and final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission and the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

    • Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects may be to Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Colonel Lawrence Brown, Department of the Army, United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey, 1759 Lewis Road, Suite 210, Monterey, CA 93944-3223, email [email protected], telephone (831) 242-7926, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and, if joined to one or more of the afore-mentioned tribes, to the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California and the Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group, may proceed.

    The United States Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey is responsible for notifying the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians of the Santa Ynez Reservation, California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; and Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 30, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03618 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-NPS0022686; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ohio History Connection has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Ohio History Connection. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Ohio History Connection at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Bradley Lepper, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (614) 298-2064, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Newcomers Town and Cemetery, Tuscarawas County, OH.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Ohio History Connection professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma.

    History and Description of the Remains

    In July 1934, construction activities relating to the installation of sewer and waterlines along Mulvane Street in Newcomerstown, Tuscarawas County, OH, uncovered human remains. Emerson F. Greenman, Curator of Archaeology for the Ohio History Connection investigated the discovery and collected human remains and associated funerary objects. The human remains consist of a single individual of indeterminate age (A1427/1) along with 37 iron nails (A1427/2) and 15 mostly fragmentary and unmodified peach pits (A1427/9), which are interpreted as funerary objects. This site subsequently was recorded as Newcomer's Town and Cemetery (33TU604).

    Newcomers Town, also known as Gekelmukpechunk, was a large Delaware Indian village occupied in the late 1700s. The limits of the site have not been established, but the human remains collected from the Mulvane Street location are reasonably inferred to relate to the Delaware Indian town and therefore these remains are considered to be culturally affiliated to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma

    Determinations Made by the Ohio History Connection

    Officials of the Ohio History Connection have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 52 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near the human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Bradley Lepper, Ohio History Connection, 800 East 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43211, telephone (614) 298-2064, email [email protected], by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, may proceed.

    The Ohio History Connection is responsible for notifying the Delaware Nation, Oklahoma, that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 5, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03609 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22597; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    At an unknown date, six cultural items were removed from unknown areas in southern Arkansas. These cultural items were given to Southern Arkansas University at an unknown date, and donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2016. The six unassociated funerary objects are one East Incised fragmentary jar, one East Incised bowl, one Nash Neck Banded jar, one effigy jar, one plain bowl, and one Hempstead Engraved bottle (Catalog #95-440-49, 50, 52, 55, 60, 61).

    The pottery types are well known examples of Caddo traditional wares. East Incised and Hempstead Engraved finewares are found throughout Southwest Arkansas, along the Red River Valley in the vicinity of the Great Bend, and into adjoining corners of Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. The time spans for the types overlap, with East Incised associated with the East Phase and ranging between A.D. 1100 and 1400, Hempstead Engraved is associated with the Haley Phase as well as the East Phase and was made between about A.D. 1200 and 1450. Nash Neck Banded was made in the 15th and 16th centuries. All three types were made before European contact and during the Caddo tradition.

    The Caddo archeological tradition developed between A.D. 900 and 1000 in the four corners region of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. Distinctive characteristics include a dispersed residential settlement of families with a lifestyle grounded in farming and collecting wild plants and animals. The core of community life was a religious and political center with ceremonial and burial mounds, public areas for community events and rituals, and a small residential population believed to be religious and political leaders and their families. Caddo ceramics are highly distinctive with dual manufacturing traditions that produced both refined wares decorated with complex stylized incised and engraved designs and utilitarian wares with highly plastic incised, punctuated, and brushed designs that are dominated by geometric motifs.

    The Caddo continued to practice traditional settlement arrangements and material crafts well into the contact period. This is confirmed in part by past discoveries of distinctive Caddo ceramics and other artifacts found with European trade items in locations where French and Spanish observers documented their settlements. There is thus a strong material link between historic Caddo Tribal communities and pre-contact archeological remains. The collection enumerated here is entirely typical of pre-contact Caddo Tradition material culture.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 6 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 19, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03606 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22598; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    History and Description of the Cultural Items

    In 1979, 1983, and 1986, 27 cultural items were removed from the Belle Meade site (3CT30) in Crittenden County, AR. These unassociated funerary objects were recovered by the University of Memphis in 1979, 1983, and 1986, and were curated at the C.H. Nash Museum in Memphis, TN. These cultural items were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in December of 2015. The 27 unassociated funerary objects are 10 partial jars, 5 fragmentary bottles, 1 frog effigy, 10 reconstructed bowls, and 1 reconstructed Ogee bowl (Catalog #2016-551, 552, 553, 554, 555, and 556).

    At an unknown date, 10 cultural items were removed from the Belle Meade site (3CT30) in Crittenden County, AR. These unassociated funerary objects were donated to the C.H. Nash Museum in Memphis, TN, part of the University of Memphis. These cultural items were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in December of 2015. The 10 unassociated funerary objects are 1 reconstructed bowl, 1 fragmentary bottle, 5 fragmentary jar, 2 large bag of sherds, and 1 partial Ogee short necked bottle (Catalog # 2016-556, 557).

    In 1980 and 1983, 22 cultural items were removed from the Beck site (3CT8) in Crittenden County, AR. These unassociated funerary objects were recovered by the University of Memphis and curated at the C.H. Nash Museum in Memphis, TN. These cultural items were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in December of 2015. The 22 unassociated funerary objects include 5 reconstructed jars, 1 wide-mouthed bottle, 2 reconstructed effigy bowls, 4 fragmentary bottles, 1 effigy jar, 6 fragmentary bowls, 2 fragmentary jars, and 1 fragmentary teapot vessel (Catalog #2016-473, 477).

    The items detailed in this inventory represent late prehistoric and protohistoric items common to large village sites located in the central Mississippi Valley province of northeastern Arkansas. It is difficult to link historic ethnic identities to prehistoric cultural manifestations identified for this region solely on the basis of archeological evidence. In response to this circumstance, modern Native American communities assert cultural affiliations for the purpose of NAGPRA repatriation claims based on settlement locations at the beginning of the Colonial era as documented by early European accounts. Colonial records from the late 17th century and extending through the 18th century place Quapaws in the region encompassed by the modern counties from which the collections listed above are derived. The first treaty the Quapaws signed with the United States, in 1818, further establishes residence and control over, or interest in, these portions of Arkansas.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the 59 cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556 by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional claimants have come forward, transfer of control of the unassociated funerary objects to the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying the Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: December 19, 2016. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03621 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22752: PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Arkansas Archeological Survey at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from multiple counties in the state of Arkansas.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Caddo Nation, The Osage Nation (previously listed as the Osage Tribe), and The Quapaw Tribe of Indians. These human remains were inventoried and documented by physical anthropologists at the University of Arkansas.

    History and Description of the Remains

    At an unknown date, human remains representing at minimum, one individual were removed from the East site (3CL21) in Clark County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the East site (3CL21) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from site 3CL24 in Clark County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1974. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CL24 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Bayou Sel site (3CL27) in Clark County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary items were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bayou Sel site (3CL27) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Copeland Ridge site (3CL195) in Clark County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1991. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Copeland Ridge site (3CL195) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650), Late Caddo (A.D. 1450-1650), or Social Hill Phase (A.D. 1500-1600).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from site 3CL287 in Clark County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1980. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3CL287 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1650).

    In 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Wilson site (3CV109) in Cleveland County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The associated funerary object includes one fragmentary Foster Incised/Keno trailed bowl (84-482). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Wilson site (3CV109) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Mississippi Period (A.D. 1350-1650) or Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1650).

    In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Kelly Sears site (3CO3) in Columbia County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Kelly Sears site (3CO3) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1971, human remains representing, at minimum, 10 individuals were recovered from the Hood site (3HE54) in Hempstead County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Hood site (3HE54) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1972 and 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, 20 individuals were recovered from the Ferguson site (3HE63) in Hempstead County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The 51 associated artifacts include 42 ceramic vessels, two broken siltstone discs, one cut shell, one tool kit, one worked flake, one Gary point, one fragmentary biface, one quartz crystal, and one clay objects (72-22). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Ferguson site (3HE63) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900) or Haley Phase (A.D. 1200-1400).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Purtle site (3HE70) in Hempstead County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1973. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Purtle site (3HE70) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1983 and 1984, human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were recovered from the Martin Farm site (3HE92) in Hempstead County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Martin Farm site (3HE92) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Woodland Period (650 B.C.-A.D. 950) or Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Barkman Salt site (3HS10) in Hot Spring County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Barkman Salt site (3HS10) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650).

    In 1974, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3HS15 in Hot Spring County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3HS15 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650).

    In 1976, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from site 3HS22 in Hot Spring County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3HS22 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Caddo (A.D. 1450-1600) or Caddo IV Period (A.D. 1500-1700).

    In 1972, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from site 3HS38 in Hot Spring County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at site 3HS38 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1600) or Caddo IV Period (A.D. 1500-1700).

    In 1996, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from site 3HS450 in Hot Spring County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the site 3HS450 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo III period (A.D. 1400-1500).

    In 1992, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered near site 3LO17 in Logan County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found near site 3LO17 indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2016, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the surface of the Wild Violet Site (3LO226) in Logan County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Wild Violet site (3LO226) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Archaic Period (2000 B.C.-A.D. 800) or Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Moore/Higginbotham site (3MI3/30) in Miller County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Moore/Higginbotham site (3MI3/30) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Fourche Maline tradition (500 B.C.-A.D. 900).

    In 1968, 1969, 1983, and 2009, human remains representing, at minimum, 380 individuals were recovered from the Crenshaw site (3MI6) in Miller County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates found at the Crenshaw site (3MI6) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Middle Caddo Period (A.D. 1200-1400).

    In 1994, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered near the Caddo River in Montgomery County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found along the Caddo River indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from an unknown site in Ouachita County. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1987. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary items were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Ouachita County indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Slough Bend site (3SA7) in Saline County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1969. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Slough Bend site (3SA7) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    In 2002, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from the Hughes Mound site (3SA11) in Saline County, AR. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Hughes Mound site (3SA11) indicate that the human remains were probably buried during the Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1650).

    In 1978 and 1985, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from the Holman Springs site (3SV29) in Sevier County, AR. No known individuals were identified. The two associated funerary objects include one lot of grey clay and one ceramic vessel (85-380-270, 271). Diagnostic artifacts found at the Holman Springs site (3SV29) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Middle (A.D. 1300-1450) or Late Caddo Period (A.D. 1450-1650).

    In 1987, human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were recovered from the Wake site (3SV224) in Sevier County, AR. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Wake site (3SV224) indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Late Woodland period (A.D. 600-950).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were recovered from the Bowman site in Southwest Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 1984. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found at the Bowman site indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Caddo tradition (A.D. 900-1650).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were recovered from an unknown location in Southwest Arkansas. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2006 and 2007. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Southwest Arkansas indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Sebastian County, AR. These human remains were determined to be of Native American descent and were transferred to the Arkansas Archeological Survey. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Sebastian County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    At an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were recovered from an unknown location in Garland County, AR. These human remains were donated to the Arkansas Archeological Survey in 2015. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects were present. Diagnostic artifacts found in Garland County, AR, indicate that these human remains were probably buried during the Prehistoric Period (11,650 B.C.-A.D. 1541).

    This notice includes a variety of terms commonly used in discussions of Arkansas archeology and the historical trajectories that gave rise to specific Native American communities identified in the historic record. Based on the archeological context for these sites and what is presently known about the peoples who pre-date the historic Caddo and occupied the sites listed in this notice, the Arkansas Archeological Society has determined the human remains listed in this notice are culturally affiliated with the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.

    Determinations Made by the Arkansas Archeological Survey

    Officials of the Arkansas Archeological Survey have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 459 individuals of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 54 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Dr. George Sabo, Director, Arkansas Archeological Survey, 2475 North Hatch Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72704, telephone (479) 575-3556, by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma may proceed.

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey is responsible for notifying the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 17, 2017, Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03614 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22723; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion: Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washington, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum (Burke Museum) has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Burke Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.

    DATES:

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Burke Museum at the address in this notice by March 27, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849x2, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Burke Museum, Seattle, WA. The human remains were removed from “Arctic Alaska”.

    This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.

    Consultation

    A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Burke Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, the Native Village of Point Hope, and the North Slope Borough's Department of Inupiat History, Language and Culture, an entity that does not have standing under the law, but assists the tribes and Native Villages with repatriation efforts.

    History and Description of the Remains

    On an unknown date prior to 1923, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location in the Alaskan Arctic. The original museum catalog ledger information notes these human remains are from “Arctic Alaska”. Based on where the catalog number entry (#3499) falls on the ledger, these human remains were brought to the museum prior to 1923. No known individuals were identified. No funerary objects are present.

    These human remains have been determined to be Native American based on geographical and biological information. Archeological and biological information suggest continuity between past populations and the modern Inupiat. These human remains exhibit characteristics of being collected from the surface, including bleaching and lichen adhered to the cranium and mandible. This is consistent with traditional Inupiat burial practices of laying the deceased on the surface or in boxes on the surface. The Inupiat are now members of the Atqasuk Village (Atkasook), Kaktovik Village (a.k.a. Barter Island), Native Village of Nuiqsut (a.k.a. Nooiksut), Native Village of Point Lay, Village of Anaktuvuk Pass, and Village of Wainwright, which are all represented by the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, and Native Village of Point Hope.

    Determinations Made by the Burke Museum

    Officials of the Burke Museum have determined that:

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.

    • Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, and Native Village of Point Hope.

    Additional Requestors and Disposition

    Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Peter Lape, Burke Museum, University of Washington, Box 353010, Seattle, WA 98195, telephone (206) 685-3849 ext 2, email [email protected], by March 27, 2017. After that date, if no additional requestors have come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, and Native Village of Point Hope may proceed.

    The Burke Museum is responsible for notifying the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, and Native Village of Point Hope that this notice has been published.

    Dated: January 10, 2017. Melanie O'Brien, Manager, National NAGPRA Program.
    [FR Doc. 2017-03607 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-22754; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP14.R50000] Notice of Inventory Completion for Native American Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects in the Possession of the Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR, and Notice of Inventory Completion: Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville, AR; Correction AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Arkansas Archeological Survey has corrected an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, published in a Notice of Inventory Completion in the Federal Register on April 15, 2002 and on December 22,