Federal Register Vol. 82, No.51,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 51 (March 17, 2017)

Page Range14111-14317
FR Document

82_FR_51
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 14316 - Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 14314 - Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 14149 - Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone-St. Patrick's Day FireworksPDF
82 FR 14265 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Expand the Types of Entities That Are Eligible To Participate in Fixed Income Clearing Corporation as Sponsored Members and Make Other ChangesPDF
82 FR 14227 - National Institute of Arthritis And Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 14227 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14226 - National Institute on Aging; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14225 - National Human Genome Research Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 14225 - National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 14226 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 14226 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 14276 - Sanctions Action Pursuant to Executive Order 13224PDF
82 FR 14162 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna FisheriesPDF
82 FR 14229 - Notice of Public Meeting; Central Montana Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 14210 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 14277 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Approval of Licensing or Certification Test and Organization or EntityPDF
82 FR 14276 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation BenefitsPDF
82 FR 14278 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Compliance Inspection ReportPDF
82 FR 14278 - Agency Information Collection Activity: Financial StatementPDF
82 FR 14276 - Agency Information Collection Under OMB Review: Non-Degenerative Arthritis (Including Inflammatory, Autoimmune, Crystalline and Infectious Arthritis) and Dysbaric Osteonecrosis Disability Benefits QuestionnairePDF
82 FR 14217 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
82 FR 14274 - Environmental Impact Statement: Dallas County, TexasPDF
82 FR 14228 - Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge, Plymouth, MA; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental AssessmentPDF
82 FR 14211 - Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 14275 - Notice To Rescind a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Dallas County, TexasPDF
82 FR 14209 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14208 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
82 FR 14206 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
82 FR 14258 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14203 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 14204 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 14201 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 14200 - Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
82 FR 14237 - Information Collection: Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data CollectionPDF
82 FR 14236 - Information Collection: “Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations”PDF
82 FR 14218 - Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities ListPDF
82 FR 14205 - Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Application for an Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
82 FR 14143 - Presiding Officer for an Appeal and Informal Hearing; Technical AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 14234 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 14212 - Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; AmendmentPDF
82 FR 14251 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend MIAX Options Rule 515, Execution of Orders and QuotesPDF
82 FR 14272 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Data Collection Requirements in Rule 4470PDF
82 FR 14256 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Data Reporting Requirements of Rule 4770PDF
82 FR 14263 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 14238 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Data Collection Requirements in Rule 3317PDF
82 FR 14243 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend the Exchange Opening ProcessPDF
82 FR 14261 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018PDF
82 FR 14240 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change To: (i) Amend Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8) To Modify the Operation of the Primary Peg Order Type; (ii) Amend Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii) Regarding Price Sliding in Locked and Crossed Markets To Simplify the Price Sliding Process for Both Primary Peg Orders and Discretionary Peg Orders Resting on or Posting to the Order Book; and (iii) Make Minor Technical Changes To Conform Certain TerminologyPDF
82 FR 14269 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Price ListPDF
82 FR 14259 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.27 To Modify the Date of Appendix B Web Site Data Publication Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 14249 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule To Change the Definition of Net Zero Complex OrderPDF
82 FR 14119 - Special Conditions: Avionics Design Services Ltd., Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL Airplanes; Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery SystemsPDF
82 FR 14113 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Isolation of Airplane Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal AccessPDF
82 FR 14125 - Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized External AccessPDF
82 FR 14128 - Special Conditions: Lufthansa Technik AG; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger CompartmentPDF
82 FR 14111 - Special Conditions: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger CompartmentPDF
82 FR 14117 - Definition with High-Speed-Protection SystemPDF
82 FR 14122 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ-170 Airplanes; Seats With Large, Non-Traditional, Non-Metallic PanelsPDF
82 FR 14126 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes, Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability, and Low-Energy AwarenessPDF
82 FR 14115 - Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 787-10 Airplane; Aeroelastic Stability Requirements, Flaps-Up Vertical Modal-Suppression SystemPDF
82 FR 14122 - Special Conditions: Aerocon Engineering Company, Boeing Model 777-200 Airplane; Access Hatch Installed Between the Cabin and the Class C Cargo Compartment To Allow In-Flight Access to the Cargo CompartmentPDF
82 FR 14199 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 14233 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 14234 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability ActPDF
82 FR 14230 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 14232 - Truck and Bus Tires From ChinaPDF
82 FR 14231 - Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary CountriesPDF
82 FR 14274 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Now Then: Chris Killip and the Making of In Flagrante” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 14234 - Sunshine Act NoticePDF
82 FR 14230 - Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From ChinaPDF
82 FR 14274 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Inventing Utamaro: A Japanese Masterpiece Rediscovered” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 14208 - Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14212 - Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final AmendmentsPDF
82 FR 14217 - Green Mountain Power; Ottauquechee Hydro Company, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of ExemptionPDF
82 FR 14215 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725T); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
82 FR 14216 - Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the 2017 Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 14213 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gulf Coast Expansion ProjectPDF
82 FR 14216 - Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical ConferencePDF
82 FR 14214 - Inside Passage Electric Cooperative; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To IntervenePDF
82 FR 14238 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Purchase of Commercial VehiclesPDF
82 FR 14224 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical DevicesPDF
82 FR 14219 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 14223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Premarket NotificationPDF
82 FR 14225 - Health Resources and Services AdministrationPDF
82 FR 14198 - Tobacco Report: Notice of Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 14199 - Missouri River Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 14221 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data SubmissionsPDF
82 FR 14171 - Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA); TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency ResponsePDF
82 FR 14149 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund SitePDF
82 FR 14171 - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund SitePDF
82 FR 14205 - Evaluation of State Coastal Management ProgramsPDF
82 FR 14167 - Copyright Royalty Board Regulations Regarding Filing of Claims to Royalty Fees Collected Under Compulsory LicensePDF
82 FR 14184 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine SanctuaryPDF
82 FR 14164 - Special Conditions: AmSafe; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 14147 - Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labor Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for the H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Worker ProgramPDF
82 FR 14157 - Final Flood Elevation DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 14153 - Final Flood Elevation DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 14161 - Final Flood Elevation DeterminationsPDF
82 FR 14282 - Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged DataPDF
82 FR 14130 - Exhibit Hyperlinks and HTML FormatPDF

Issue

82 51 Friday, March 17, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14219-14221 2017-05301 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tobacco Report, 14198-14199 2017-05297 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14209 2017-05365 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—St. Patrick's Day Fireworks, 14149 2017-05418 Commerce Commerce Department See

Economic Development Administration

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 14206-14208 2017-05363 2017-05364 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board PROPOSED RULES Filing of Claims to Royalty Fees Collected Under Compulsory License, 14167-14170 2017-05239 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14208-14209 2017-05312 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Arms Sales, 14210-14211 2017-05385 Meetings: Military Family Readiness Council, 14211-14212 2017-05368 Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee, 14212 2017-05347
Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 14199-14200 2017-05324 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 14149-14153 2017-05290 PROPOSED RULES National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site; National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 14171 2017-05289 TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response: Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), 14171-14184 2017-05291 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Weekly Receipts, 14217-14218 2017-05375 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Aerocon Engineering Company, Boeing Model 777-200 Airplane; Access Hatch Installed Between the Cabin and the Class C Cargo Compartment to Allow In-Flight Access to the Cargo Compartment, 14122-14125 2017-05325 Avionics Design Services Ltd., Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL Airplanes; Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems, 14119-14122 2017-05334 Bombardier Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes, Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability, and Low-Energy Awareness, 14126-14128 2017-05327 Embraer S.A. Model ERJ-170 Airplanes; Seats with Large, Non-Traditional, Non-Metallic Panels, 14122 2017-05328 Embraer, S.A., Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Dive-Speed Definition with High-Speed-Protection System, 14117-14119 2017-05329 L-3 Communications Integrated Systems; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment, 14111-14113 2017-05330 Lufthansa Technik AG; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment, 14128-14130 2017-05331 Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection from Unauthorized External Access, 14125-14126 2017-05332 Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Isolation of Airplane Electronic System Security Protection from Unauthorized Internal Access, 14113-14115 2017-05333 The Boeing Company Model 787-10 Airplane; Aeroelastic Stability Requirements, Flaps-Up Vertical Modal-Suppression System, 14115-14117 2017-05326 PROPOSED RULES Special Conditions: AmSafe; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 14164-14166 2017-05198 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Flood Elevation Determinations, 14153-14162 2017-05151 2017-05154 2017-05157 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14215-14216 2017-05309 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Co., 2017 Expansion Project, 14216-14217 2017-05308 Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Gulf Coast Expansion Project, 14213-14214 2017-05307 Hydroelectric Applications: Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC, 14212-14213 2017-05311 Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, 14214-14215 2017-05305 Meetings: Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Technical Conference, 14216 2017-05306 Transfers of Exemptions: Green Mountain Power; Ottauquechee Hydro Company, Inc., 14217 2017-05310 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Dallas County, TX, 14274-14275 2017-05370 Dallas County, TX; Rescission, 14275 2017-05367 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge, Plymouth, MA, 14228-14229 2017-05369 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Presiding Officer for an Appeal and Informal Hearing, 14143-14147 2017-05350 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions, 14221-14223 2017-05293 Premarket Notification, 14223-14224 2017-05300 Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices, 14224-14225 2017-05302 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 14276 2017-05388 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Missouri River Resource Advisory Committee, 14199 2017-05295 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Initial Funded Priorities List, 14218-14219 2017-05353 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services, 14225 2017-05298 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

RULES Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for the H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Worker Program, 14147-14149 2017-05178
Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Eyad Farah, 14200-14201 2017-05356 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Amorphous Silica Fabric from the People's Republic of China, 14314-14317 2017-05431 2017-05432 Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Final Results of Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 14201-14203 2017-05357 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Digital Cable and Satellite Products, Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, and Components Thereof, 14230-14231 2017-05321 Certain Intravascular Administration Sets and Components Thereof, 14233-14234 2017-05323 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate from China, 14230 2017-05315 Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries, 14231-14232 2017-05319 Truck and Bus Tires from China, 14232-14233 2017-05320 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under CERCLA, 14234 2017-05322 Labor Department Labor Department See

Wage and Hour Division

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Central Montana Resource Advisory Council, 14229 2017-05386 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

Marine Marine Mammal Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 14234 2017-05317 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 14234-14236 2017-05348 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 14226 2017-05389 2017-05390 National Advisory Council on Aging, 14226-14227 2017-05393 National Cancer Institute; Amendment, 14225 2017-05391 National Human Genome Research Institute, 14225-14226 2017-05392 National Institute of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, 14227 2017-05395 National Institute on Aging, 14227 2017-05394 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries, 14162-14163 2017-05387 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 14184-14197 2017-05227 NOTICES Exempted Fishing Permit Applications: Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific: Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery, 14205-14206 2017-05351 Meetings: Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs, 14205 2017-05249 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 14204-14205 2017-05360 New England Fishery Management Council, 14203-14204 2017-05358 2017-05359 2017-05361 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection, 14237-14238 2017-05355 Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations, 14236-14237 2017-05354 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Purchase of Commercial Vehicles, 14238 2017-05304 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Exhibit Hyperlinks and HTML Format, 14130-14143 2017-04365 PROPOSED RULES Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged Data, 14282-14311 2017-04366 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 14258-14259 2017-05362 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., 14259-14261 2017-05336 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 14263-14265 2017-05342 Fixed Income Clearing Corp., 14265-14269 2017-05403 International Securities Exchange, LLC, 14243-14251 2017-05335 2017-05340 Investors Exchange, LLC, 14240-14243 2017-05338 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 14251-14256 2017-05345 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 14256-14258, 14261-14263 2017-05339 2017-05343 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 14238-14240 2017-05341 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 14269-14272 2017-05337 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 14272-14274 2017-05344 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Inventing Utamaro—A Japanese Masterpiece Rediscovered, 14274 2017-05314 Now Then—Chris Killip and the Making of In Flagrante, 14274 2017-05318 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, 14276-14277 2017-05383 Approval of Licensing or Certification Test and Organization or Entity, 14277-14278 2017-05384 Compliance Inspection Report, 14278-14279 2017-05382 Financial Statement, 14278 2017-05381 Non-Degenerative Arthritis (Including Inflammatory, Autoimmune, Crystalline and Infectious Arthritis) and Dysbaric Osteonecrosis Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 14276 2017-05380 Wage Wage and Hour Division RULES Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for the H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Worker Program, 14147-14149 2017-05178 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 14282-14311 2017-04366 Part III Commerce Department, International Trade Administration, 14314-14317 2017-05431 2017-05432 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 51 Friday, March 17, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3324; Special Conditions No. 25-650-SC] Special Conditions: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. This airplane, as modified by L-3 Communications Integrated Systems (L-3 Communications), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the cabin area of an executive interior occupied by passengers and crew. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On May 10, 2011, L-3 Communications applied for a supplemental type certificate for large, non-structural glass panels in the passenger compartment in Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes. The Model 747-8 airplane is a derivative of the Boeing Model 747-400 airplane approved under type certificate no. A20WE. The airplane, as modified by L-3 Communications, is a four-engine, transport-category airplane that will have a maximum takeoff weight of 970,000 lbs, capacity for 24 crewmembers, and seating for 143 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

The certification basis for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as defined in type certificate no. A20WE, is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-120, with exceptions for structures and systems that were unchanged from the 747-400 design.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, L-3 Communications must show that the Model 747-8 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A20WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change.

The certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 747-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

L-3 Communications Integrated Systems is modifying a Boeing Model 747-8 airplane to install an executive interior. This airplane, as modified, will have a novel or unusual design feature that is the installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the cabin area of an executive interior occupied by passengers and crew. The installation of these glass items in the passenger compartment, which can be occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing, is a novel or unusual design feature with respect to the material being installed. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature.

Discussion

No specific regulations address the design and installation of large glass components in airplane passenger cabins. Existing requirements, such as §§ 25.561, 25.562, 25.601, 25.603, 25.613, 25.775, and 25.789, in the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane certification basis applicable to this supplemental type certificate project, provide some design standards appropriate for large glass component installations. However, additional design standards for non-structural glass are needed to complement the existing requirements. The addition of glass involved in this installation, and the potentially unsafe conditions caused by damage to such components from external sources, necessitate assuring that adequate safety standards are applied to the design and installation of the feature in Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes.

For purposes of these special conditions, a large glass component is defined as a glass component weighing 4 kg (9 lbs) or more. Groupings of glass items that individually weigh less than 4 kg, but collectively weigh 4 kg or more, also would need to be included. These special conditions also apply when showing compliance with the applicable performance standards in the regulations for the installation of these components. For example, heat-release and smoke-density testing must not result in fragmentation of the component.

The use of glass has resulted in trade-offs between the one unique characteristic of glass—its capability for undistorted or controlled light transmittance, or transparency—and the negative aspects of the material, such as extreme notch-sensitivity, low fracture resistance, low modulus of elasticity, and highly variable properties. While reasonably strong, glass is nonetheless not a desirable material for traditional airplane applications because it is heavy (about the same density as aluminum), and when it fails, it breaks into extremely sharp fragments that have the potential for injury and which have been known to be lethal. Thus, the use of glass traditionally has been limited to windshields, and instrument or display transparencies. The regulations only address, and thus only recognize, the use of glass in windshield or window applications. These regulations do address the adverse properties of glass, but even so, pilots are occasionally injured from shattered glass windshields. FAA policy allows glass on instruments and display transparencies.

Other installations of large, non-structural glass items have included the following:

☐ Glass panels integrated onto a stairway handrail closeout.

☐ Glass panels mounted in doors to allow visibility through the door when desired.

☐ Glass doors on some galley compartments containing small amounts of service items.

These special conditions will reduce the hazards from breakage, or from these panels' potential separation from the cabin interior.

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

Discussion of Comments

Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-16-04-SC, for L-3 Communications modifications to the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9365). One comment was received.

By letter no. B-H020-REG-16-TLM-16 dated March 24, 2016, on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing), Capt. Terry L. McVenes, Director, System Safety & Regulatory Affairs, wrote that Boeing provides a

. . . comprehensive set of comments that identify areas of the proposed text where changes would be beneficial for better clarity and accuracy. [Boeing] consider[s] such clarifications important to ensure consistent and standardized interpretation and application of the requirements and guidance provided in the document.

Boeing recommends that proposed special condition no. 1, Material, and proposed special condition no. 2, Fragmentation, be revised to more-clearly define what each of these special conditions require, and how these two requirements are different. We agree that those two conditions could be addressed with a single test, so we combined those two conditions into a single condition, special condition no. 1, in this document, for clarity. The subsequent special conditions have been renumbered accordingly.

Boeing commented that the load conditions in special condition no. 4, which corresponds to special condition no. 3 in this document, should include all flight and landing loads, rather than only emergency landing. These special conditions are in addition to the load requirements in the certification basis for the glass installation, rather than in lieu of the load requirements. Thus, it is not necessary to repeat that all of these loads apply to this installation. The emergency-landing load condition is not normally applied to installations of this type, but for the use of large glass in the cabin, we determined that this additional safety standard is necessary. We made no changes to special condition number 3 in response to the Boeing comments.

Boeing recommends that the loading conditions in proposed special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2), Strength, and proposed special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3), Retention, be the same. Proposed special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2), Strength, is required to address the unique, extremely notch-sensitive characteristics of the glass as having low fracture resistance, low modulus of elasticity, and highly variable properties. Special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2) specifically accounts for abuse loads in addition to the loads required per subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25. Special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3) accounts for loads encountered during directional loading and rebound resulting from emergency landing loads of 14 CFR part 25. We have made minor grammatical modifications to the requirements.

Boeing recommends that, for proposed special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3), Retention, the statement, “Both the directional loading and rebound conditions must be assessed,” be removed, because these both are covered in proposed special condition no. 3. As explained above, special condition nos. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2) and 4 (which is now special condition no. 3) account for different loading conditions. We have made minor grammatical modifications to the requirements.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes as modified by L-3 Communications. Should L-3 Communications apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate no. A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued, for large glass components installed in a cabin occupied by passengers or crew who are not otherwise protected from the injurious effects of failure of the glass installations, as part of the type certification basis for Boeing 747-8 airplanes modified by L-3 Communications.

1. Material Fragmentation—The applicant must use tempered or otherwise treated glass to ensure that, when fractured, the glass breaks into small pieces with relatively dull edges. The glass component installation must retain all glass fragments to minimize the danger from flying glass shards or pieces. The applicant must demonstrate this characteristic by impact and puncture testing, and testing to failure. The applicant may conduct this test with or without any glass coating that may be utilized in the design.

2. Strength—In addition to meeting the load requirements for all flight and landing loads, including any of the applicable emergency-landing conditions in subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25, the glass components that are located such that they are not protected from contact with cabin occupants must not fail due to abusive loading, such as impact from occupants stumbling into, leaning against, sitting on, or performing other intentional or unintentional forceful contact with the glass component. The applicant must assess the effect of design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including but not limited to embossing and etching.

3. Retention—The glass component, as installed in the airplane, must not come free of its restraint or mounting system in the event of an emergency landing, considering both the directional loading and resulting rebound conditions. The applicant must assess the effect of design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including but not limited to embossing and etching.

4. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The instructions for continued airworthiness must reflect the method used to fasten the panel to the cabin interior, and must ensure the reliability of the methods used (e.g., life limit of adhesives, or clamp connection). The applicant must define any inspection methods and intervals based upon adhesion data from the manufacturer of the adhesive, or upon actual adhesion-test data, if necessary.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05330 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9489; Special Conditions No. 25-649-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Isolation of Airplane Electronic System Security Protection From Unauthorized Internal Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is airplane electronic systems and networks that allow access, from aircraft internal sources (e.g., wireless devices, Internet connectivity), to the airplane's previously isolated, internal, electronic components. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron on March 17, 2017. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9489 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 airplane. The Textron Model 700 airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category executive airplane with seating for 2 crewmembers and 12 passengers, and a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

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

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Textron Model 700 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Airplane electronic systems and networks that allow access, from airplane internal sources (e.g., wireless devices, Internet connectivity), to the previously isolated airplane electronic assets.

Discussion

Networks, both in safety-related and non-safety-related applications, have been implemented in existing commercial-production airplanes. However, network security considerations and functions have played a relatively minor role in the certification of such systems because of the isolation, protection mechanisms, and limited connectivity between these networks.

To provide an understanding of the airplane electronic equipment, systems, and assets, these special conditions use the concept of domains. However, this does not prescribe any particular architecture.

The aircraft-control domain consists of the airplane electronic systems, equipment, instruments, networks, servers, software and hardware components, databases, etc., which are part of the type design of the airplane and are installed in the airplane to enable the safe operation of the airplane. These can also be referred to as flight-safety-related systems, and include flight controls, communication, display, monitoring, navigation, and related systems.

The airline-information-services domain generally consists of functions that the airplane operator manages or controls, such as administrative functions, cabin-support functions, etc.

The passenger-information-services domain consists of all functions required to provide the passengers with information.

The Textron Model 700 airplane design introduces the potential for access to aircraft-control domain and airline-information-services domain by unauthorized persons through the passenger-information-services domain; and the security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases.

For electronic systems and assets security in these domains, the level of protection provided against security threats should be based on a security-risk assessment, noting that the level of protection could differ between domains and within domains, depending on the security threat. For each security vulnerability and airplane electronic asset, Textron should identify in which domain the asset will be addressed.

In addition, the operating systems for current airplane systems are usually and historically proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as are more widely used commercial operating systems, because access to the design details of these proprietary operating systems is limited to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some airplanes are equipped with operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than are the vulnerabilities of proprietary operating systems that the avionics manufacturers currently use.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Model 700 airplanes.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05333 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6137; Special Conditions No. 25-644-SC] Special Conditions: The Boeing Company Model 787-10 Airplane; Aeroelastic Stability Requirements, Flaps-Up Vertical Modal-Suppression System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 787-10 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a flaps-up vertical modal-suppression system, which is in lieu of traditional methods of improving airplane flutter characteristics. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wael Nour, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2143; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On July 30, 2013, Boeing applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00021SE to include the new Model 787-10 airplane. This twin-engine, transport-category airplane is a stretched-fuselage derivative of the 787-9, with maximum seating capacity of 440 passengers. The 787-10 has a maximum takeoff weight of 560,000 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 787-10 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these proposed special conditions. Type Certificate No. T00021SE will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 787-10 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 787-10 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model 787-10 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

A flaps-up vertical modal suppression system.

Discussion

The Boeing Model 787-10 will add a new flaps-up vertical modal-suppression (F0VMS) system to the Normal mode of the primary flight-control system (PFCS). The F0VMS system is needed to satisfy the flutter-damping margin requirements of § 25.629 and the means-of-compliance provisions in Advisory Circular (AC) 25.629-1B. This system will be used in lieu of typical methods of improving the flutter characteristics of an airplane, such as increasing the torsional stiffness of the wing or adding wingtip ballast weights.

The F0VMS system is an active modal-suppression system that will provide additional damping to an already stable, but low-damped, 3Hz symmetric wing, nacelle, and body aeroelastic mode of the airplane. This feedback-control system will maintain adequate damping margins to flutter. The F0VMS system accomplishes this by oscillating the elevators, and, when needed, the flaperons.

Because Boeing's flutter analysis shows that the 3Hz mode is stable and does not flutter, the F0VMS system is not an active flutter-suppression system, but, rather, a damping-augmentation system. At this time, the FAA is not prepared to accept an active flutter-suppression system that suppresses a divergent flutter mode in the operational or design envelope of the airplane.

This will be the first time an active modal-suppression system will be used for § 25.629 compliance. The use of this new active modal-suppression system for flutter compliance is novel or unusual when compared to the technology envisioned in the current airworthiness standards. Consequently, special conditions are required in consideration of the effects of this new system on the aeroelastic stability of the airplane, both in the normal and failed state, to maintain the level of safety intended by § 25.629.

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

Discussion of Comments

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-16-05-SC for the Boeing Model 787-10 airplane was published in the Federal Register on September 20, 2016 (81 FR 64360). One substantive comment was received.

By letter no. B-H020-REG-16-TLM-68 dated November 1, 2016, Boeing stated that they “. . . recommend that development of future requirements for the application of [active modal-suppression system for flutter compliance] technology be the subject of an Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC).” Boeing adds that “. . . standard requirements should be developed which reflect this state-of-the-art system and apply to all airplane manufacturers. The development of these requirements would benefit from the collaborative effort of an ARAC.”

The FAA agrees with Boeing and currently has plans to task ARAC to develop recommendations on this subject.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 787-10 airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787-10 airplanes.

The following special conditions are proposed to address the aeroelastic stability of the 787-10 airplane with the F0VMS system as an integral part of the PFCS Normal mode:

Analytical Flutter-Clearance Requirements

1. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode (which includes F0VMS) must meet the nominal (no failures) flutter and aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629(b)(1), and the damping-margin criteria of AC 25.629-1B, Section 7.1.3.3. Figure 1, below, illustrates the Damping versus Airspeed plot.

a. The aeroservoelastic analysis must take into account the effect of the following items:

i. Significant structural and aerodynamic nonlinearities.

ii. Significant F0VMS nonlinearities, including control-surface rate and displacement saturation, and blowdown.

iii. The range of design maneuver load factors.

iv. Control surface freeplay.

v. Any other items that may affect the performance of the F0VMS system in maintaining adequate modal damping margins.

ER17MR17.000

2. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode, but with the F0VMS system inoperative, must exhibit a damping margin to flutter of 0.015g within the VD/MD envelope, linearly decreasing (in KEAS) to zero damping margin to flutter at 1.15 VD/1.15 MD, limited to Mach 1.0. That is, the 3Hz mode should not cross the g = 0.015 line below VD, or the g = 0.03 line below 1.15 VD, assuming the use of analysis Method 1 of AC 25.629-1B, Section 7.1.3.3. Figure 2, below, illustrates the Damping versus Airspeed plot.

ER17MR17.001

3. The airplane in the PFCS Normal mode (which includes F0VMS) must meet the fail-safe flutter and aeroelastic stability requirements of § 25.629(b)(2), and the damping-margin criteria of AC 25.629-1B, Section 7.1.3.5.

4. The airplane in the PFCS Secondary and Direct modes must meet the fail-safe flutter and aeroelastic-stability requirements of § 25.629(b)(2), and the damping-margin criteria of AC 25.629-1B, Section 7.1.3.5.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05326 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9403; Special Conditions No. 25-643-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer, S.A., Model ERJ 190-300 Airplane; Dive-Speed Definition with High-Speed-Protection System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Embraer, S.A., (Embraer) Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a high-speed-protection system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Embraer on March 17, 2017. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9403 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Greg Schneider, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2116; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

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

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Embraer must show that the ERJ 190-300 meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A57NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: a high-speed-protection system.

Discussion

Section 25.335(b)(1) addresses a dive-speed condition, that was originally adopted in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations, to provide an acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive speed. Design dive speed impacts flutter-clearance design speeds and airframe design loads. While the initial condition for the upset specified in the rule is 1 g level flight, protection is provided for other inadvertent overspeed conditions as well. Section 25.335(b)(1) is intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed conditions, including non-symmetric conditions. To ensure that potential overspeed conditions are covered, the applicant should demonstrate that the airplane will not exceed dive speed in inadvertent, or gust-induced, upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the airplane is protected, by the flight-control laws, from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The applicant should conduct a demonstration that includes a comprehensive set of conditions, as described in the special conditions.

These special conditions are in lieu of § 25.335(b)(1). Section 25.335(b)(2), which also addresses the design dive speed, is applied separately. Advisory Circular (AC) 25.335-1A, Design Dive Speed, dated September 29, 2000, provides an acceptable means of compliance to § 25.335(b)(2)).

Special conditions are necessary to address the high-speed-protection system on the Embraer Model ERJ 190-300 airplane. The special conditions identify various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers that will ensure that an appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is established.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

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

1. In lieu of compliance with § 25.335(b)(1), if the flight-control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate recovery before the end of the 20-second period specified in § 25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the greater of the speeds resulting from special conditions 1(a) and 1(b), below. The speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated if reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.

a. From an initial condition of stabilized flight at VC/MC, the airplane is upset so as to take up a new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. Control application, up to full authority, is made to try to maintain this new flight path. Twenty seconds after initiating the upset, manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power, as specified in § 25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until recovery is initiated, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot-controlled drag devices may be used.

b. From a speed below VC/MC, with power to maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose-down attitude that the system will permit with full control authority if less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery is initiated. Recovery may be initiated three seconds after operation of the high-speed warning system by application of a load of 1.5 g (0.5 g acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval between successive pilot actions must not be less than one second.

2. The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin, established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent or gust-induced upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes, unless the airplane is protected, by the flight-control laws, from getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers described in Advisory Circular 25-7C, “Flight Test Guide for Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,” section 8, paragraph 32, sub-paragraphs c(3)(a) and (b), may be used to comply with this requirement.

3. The probability of any failure of the high-speed-protection system that would result in an airspeed exceeding those determined by special conditions 1 and 2, above, must be less than 10−5 per flight hour.

4. Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots. Airplane flight-manual instructions must be provided that reduce the maximum operating speeds, VMO/MMO. With the system failed, the operating speed must be reduced to a value that maintains a speed margin between VMO/MMO and VD/MD, and that is consistent with showing compliance with § 25.335(b) without the benefit of the high-speed-protection system.

5. Dispatch of the airplane with the high-speed-protection system inoperative could be allowed under an approved minimum equipment list that would require airplane flight-manual instructions to indicate reduced maximum operating speeds, as described in special condition 4, above. In addition, the flight-deck display of the reduced operating speeds, as well as the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to that of the normal airplane with the high-speed-protection system operative. Also, the applicant must show that no additional hazards are introduced with the high-speed-protection system inoperative.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 7, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05329 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9401; Special Conditions No. 25-651-SC] Special Conditions: Avionics Design Services Ltd., Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL Airplanes; Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd., will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems installed in the airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron on March 17, 2017. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9401 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On July 9, 2015, Avionics Design Services Ltd. applied for a supplemental type certificate for rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems installed in Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes. These airplanes are twin-engine, transport-category business jets with a maximum capacity of 8 (Models 550 and 560) or 9 (Models S550 and 560XL) passengers, and maximum takeoff weights of 15,100 lbs. (Models 550 and S550), 16,300 lbs. (Model 560), and 20,200 lbs. (Model 560XL).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Avionics Design Services Ltd. must show that the Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A22CE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes, as modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd., because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes, as modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd., must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes, as modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd., will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Installed rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems.

Rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature in transport-category airplanes. This type of battery has certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport-category airplanes.

Discussion

Rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy-storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. These events are described in a National Transportation Safety Board letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at: http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/recletters/2014/A-14-032-036.pdf.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency-locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. This event is described in Air Accident Investigations Branch Bulletin S5/2013, available at: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-AOP.pdf.

Some other known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

□ Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global-positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight-data recorders, underwater-locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network/communication systems, communication-management units, and remote-monitor electronic line replaceable units (LRU);

□ Cabin safety, entertainment and communications equipment including life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin-management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, and remote controls and handsets; and,

□ Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with rechargeable lithium batteries are:

□ Internal failures. In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

□ Fast or imbalanced discharging. Fast discharging, or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery, may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition which, in turn, leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

□ Flammability. Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, these batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium, and use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

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

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes as modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd. Should Avionics Design Services Ltd. apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A22CE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Model 550/S550/560/560XL airplanes modified by Avionics Design Services Ltd.

Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed so that safe cell temperatures and pressures are maintained under all foreseeable operating conditions to preclude fire and explosion.

2. Be designed to preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases in normal operation, or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Be capable of automatically controlling the charge rate of each cell to prevent cell imbalance, back charging, overcharging, overheating, and uncontrollable temperature and pressure.

8. Have a means to be automatically disconnected from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure, or battery failure.

9. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if the installation's failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

10. If its function is required for safe operation of the airplane, the installment must have a monitoring and warning feature that alerts the flightcrew when its charge state falls below acceptable levels.

Note 1:

A battery system consists of the battery, battery charger, and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a battery and battery system are referred to as a battery.

Note 2:

These special conditions apply to all rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4) at Amendment 25-42. Section 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4) at Amendment 25-42 remains in effect for other battery installations.

Note 3:

Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a flammable fluid. The FAA includes special condition 4 to make it clear to applicants that the flammable-fluid fire-protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to rechargeable lithium battery installations.

Note 4:

Special conditions 7 and 8 require rechargeable lithium batteries to have “automatic” means, for charge rate and disconnect, due to the fast-acting nature of lithium battery chemical reactions. Manual intervention would not be timely or effective in mitigating the hazards associated with these batteries.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 23, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05334 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0078; Special Conditions No. 25-543-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model ERJ-170 Airplanes; Seats With Large, Non-Traditional, Non-Metallic Panels AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments; correction.

SUMMARY:

This document corrects an error that appeared in Federal Docket no. FAA-2014-0078, Special Conditions no. 25-543-SC, which was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11679). The error is in the type-certificate number referenced in the Background and Type Certification Basis sections of the special conditions. It is being corrected herein.

DATES:

The effective date of this correction is March 17, 2017

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

Special Conditions no. 25-543-SC was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11679). The document issued special conditions pertaining to seats with large, non-traditional, non-metallic panels.

As published, the document contained four errors, each referring to the type-certificate number for the Embraer S.A. Model ERJ-170 airplane.

Because no other part of the regulatory information has been changed, the special conditions document is not being re-published.

Correction

In the Final Special Conditions, Request for Comments document [FR Doc. 2014-04559 Filed 2-28-14; 8:45 a.m.] published on March 3, 2014 (79 FR 11679), make the following correction:

On page 11679, column 3, in the first and second paragraphs of the Background section; and on page 11680, column 1, in the first paragraph of the Type Certification Basis section, change “A57NM” to “A56NM.”

Issued in Renton, Washington on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05328 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8247; Special Conditions No. 25-652-SC] Special Conditions: Aerocon Engineering Company, Boeing Model 777-200 Airplane; Access Hatch Installed Between the Cabin and the Class C Cargo Compartment To Allow In-Flight Access to the Cargo Compartment AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane. This airplane, as modified by Aerocon Engineering Company (Aerocon), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is an access hatch, installed between the cabin and the Class C cargo compartment, to allow in-flight access to the Class C cargo compartment. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Shelden, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2785; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On June 26, 2015, Aerocon applied for a supplemental type certificate to install an access hatch between the cabin and Class C cargo compartment in the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane. This airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane with a VIP interior configuration. The Model 777-200 has a maximum passenger capacity of 440, and a maximum takeoff weight of 535,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Aerocon must show that the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane, as changed, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane, as modified by Aerocon, must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Boeing Model 777-200 airplane, as modified by Aerocon, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: An access hatch installed between the cabin and the Class C cargo compartment, to allow in-flight access to the Class C cargo compartment.

Discussion

The VIP operator requests to have access to the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment on their Boeing Model 777-200 airplane to store trash during flight. The installation consists of an access hatch from the main passenger cabin, with an access ladder, and a trash container mounted on its own standard airliner pallet in the lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

The FAA considers that the access hatch may impact the isolation of the passenger cabin from the cargo compartment. Isolation is necessary to protect the passengers, as required by § 25.857(c), from fire and smoke that may start within the cargo compartment. In addition, the in-flight access to the lower-deck Class C cargo compartment creates unique hazards resulting from passengers having access to cargo and baggage in the compartment. These hazards include the safety of the persons entering the cargo compartment, possible hazards to the airplane as a result of the access, and security concerns with access to the checked baggage and cargo. The special conditions defined herein provide additional requirements necessary to ensure sufficient cabin isolation from fire and smoke in this unusual design configuration, and for passenger safety while occupying the Class C cargo compartment.

The current rules relating to Class C cargo compartments do not address provisions for in-flight accessibility. The intent of the Class C cargo compartment was that it be a self-contained and isolated compartment intended to carry baggage and cargo, but not intended for human habitation. The FAA gave no consideration to an in-flight-accessible Class C cargo compartment when the classification was first developed, as no manufacturer had ever incorporated such a feature into their design. Inherently, a “cargo compartment” was not intended for in-flight access, especially by the traveling public. An allowance has been made specifically for crew access into a Class B cargo compartment for the express purpose of firefighting. Access into a cargo compartment carries with it an increased level of risk to the occupant entering the compartment, and to the airplane, as baggage or cargo could shift, a decompression could occur in the compartment, or a fire could develop during flight.

The FAA has determined that the existing airworthiness standards do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards relative to passenger access to cargo compartments. As a result, special conditions are the appropriate means to address this and all future in-flight-accessible Class C cargo compartments.

Based upon the above discussion, the cargo-compartment isolation criterion is the main concern related to the access-hatch design, which is intended to be installed between the cabin and the Class C cargo compartment.

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

Discussion of Comments

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-16-08-SC for the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane, as modified by Aerocon, was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2016 (81 FR 74350). The FAA received 6 comments from two commenters.

The Boeing Company (Boeing) comment 1 states, in pertinent part, that,

In addition to items 1 through 9, the following additional features should be considered in providing the necessary protection to passengers as required by Sec. 25.857(c):

Amount of time hatch to be left in the open condition—with the hatch open it is conceivable that the smoke detection system could be disrupted due to the change in air flow.

Similar access to class E compartments has required that the door/hatch remain closed while the occupant is in the compartment to minimize the time that the barrier between cargo compartment and occupied areas is compromised.

The FAA concurs that the airflow in the Class C cargo compartment would be affected during the time the access door is open. However, the intended provision of access to the lower-deck Class C cargo compartment is to enable a crewmember (in this case, a flight attendant) to place trash in a palletized container. The duration during which the access door is opened is expected to be very brief. If a fire occurs in the Class C cargo compartment during the time the crewmember is present, then the crew procedure requires vacating the compartment immediately and informing the flight crew after closing the access door. After the door is closed, the normal ventilation flow in the compartment should be reestablished, and the built-in fire detection system should provide annunciation of a fire to the flight deck within the required time, per 14 CFR 25.858.

The FAA finds that the limited time during which a crewmember is present in the Class C cargo compartment, and the access door is open, should not result in an appreciable increase in the fire risk. The FAA made no changes to the proposed special conditions in response to this comment.

Boeing states that some certified designs with access to Class E cargo compartments have required a door or hatch to remain closed while the compartment is occupied. However, the duration of the occupancy of those configurations may have been for a long period of time for such tasks as providing care to an animal. As stated previously, these special conditions pertain to a configuration that permits a limited duration of cargo-compartment occupancy. The FAA made no changes to the proposed special conditions in response to this comment.

Boeing comment 2 states, in pertinent part, that,

In addition to items 1 through 9, the following additional features should be considered in providing the necessary protection for occupants entering the class C cargo compartment:

Required lighting for visibility of cargo compartment hazards (shifting cargo, open holes in floor, trip hazards, etc.)

The FAA concurs that the Class C cargo compartment should have lighting installed to mitigate the hazards that may be encountered. We have added this requirement to these final special conditions.

Boeing comment 3 states, in pertinent part, that,

Means of communication from hatch to occupant needs to consider distance from opening to occupant, noise level of compartment.

The FAA concurs that adequate communication procedures must be established when the crew is accessing the Class C cargo compartment. We have added this requirement to these final special conditions.

Boeing comment 4 states, in pertinent part, that,

[14] CFR 25.1439 requires the installation of protective breathing equipment in each isolated separate compartment in which crew member occupancy is permitted during flight for the maximum number of crew members expected to be in the area during any operation.

The FAA concurs that the crew should have protective breathing equipment available and carried into the compartment if the compartment is occupied for a significant amount of time. However, as stated previously, the intended use of the compartment is to place trash in a palletized container.

The duration of cargo-compartment access required by the applicant for these special conditions is considered minimal, and therefore the installation of protective breathing equipment is not required. The FAA made no changes to the proposed special conditions in response to this comment.

Boeing comment 5 states, in pertinent part, that,

[14] CFR 121.309 requires at least one fire extinguisher for each class E cargo compartment that is accessible to crew members during flight. Crew members entering class C cargo compartments should have similar protection to occupants entering class E cargo compartments.

The FAA acknowledges the intent of Boeing's comment. The fire-safety design features in a Class C cargo compartment include a total-flooding fire suppression system that does not rely upon the presence of a crewmember to fight a fire.

The FAA has stated in different sources, and most recently in a preamble to Amendment 25-142, that the effectiveness of a crewmember fighting a fire is limited to small compartments where the crewmember must be able to reach any part of the compartment using the contents of a hand-held fire extinguisher, and that access should be a function of how the compartment is configured, rather than according to compartment volume.

Considering the volume and configuration of Class C cargo compartments, the FAA finds that the appropriate procedure for a crewmember present in a Class C cargo compartment, in the event of a fire, is to vacate the compartment immediately and inform the flight crew after closing the access door. In addition, carrying a hand-held fire extinguisher into the Class C cargo compartment may impede the crewmember's movements, such as during escape from a Class C cargo compartment in the event of a fire, and may increase the time the crewmember is accessing the compartment; both of those scenarios may increase crewmember risk in the event of a fire. The FAA made no changes to the proposed special conditions in response to this comment.

Embraer S. A. (Embraer) states, in pertinent part, that,

The proposed special condition for access hatch installed between the cabin and the class C cargo compartment to allow in-flight access to the cargo compartment has several requirements that are different from those used in a similar past special condition (25-273-SC). The preamble of this special condition notice does not indicate why these additional requirements are deemed necessary, so it would be helpful if some explanation was provided for why additional requirements are now being proposed for this project since we are unaware of any adverse service history or other evidence that shows that the requirements used in previous special conditions are now inadequate.

The relevant additional requirements are:

2. One cabin crewmember must be present to monitor the hatch from the main cabin when another cabin crewmember is using the access hatch to access the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

6. The airplane must be operated as private, not for hire, not for common carriage. This provision does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, subpart F, as applicable.

7. Use of the access hatch, and access to the aft Class C cargo compartment, is limited to the crew only. A placard stating, “Crew Only Access” must be located outside of, and on or near the access hatch of, the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

The FAA concurs with the Embraer comment in that there is a similar special condition with different requirements. However, Special Conditions 25-273-SC has other requirements, such as the installation of warning systems and emergency equipment, that these special conditions do not require. Instead of these systems and equipment, the applicant has proposed to limit the use of the operation to private, not for hire, not for common carriage; and to have a crewmember present at the access hatch to monitor activity in the Class C cargo compartment. The FAA determines that Embraer's comment does not necessitate a change to the proposed special conditions.

Applicability

As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 777-200 airplane modified by Aerocon. Should Aerocon apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00001SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-200 airplanes modified by Aerocon.

1. The flight deck must contain an indicator to advise the flightcrew when the access hatch for the Class C cargo compartment is opened.

2. One cabin crewmember must be present to monitor the hatch from the main cabin when another cabin crewmember is using the access hatch to access the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment. Adequate communication procedures must be established between the crewmembers to maintain verbal contact between the main cabin and the Class C cargo compartment. These procedures must be included in the Cabin Crew Operating Manual.

3. Means must be provided to keep the access hatch open while the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment is occupied during flight.

4. Means must be provided to keep the occupied area of the Class C cargo compartment illuminated during use.

5. Access to the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment or using the access hatch is not allowed during:

a. Taxi, takeoff, and landing,

b. when the fasten-seat-belt sign is illuminated,

c. in the event of emergency not limited to smoke and fire detected in the cargo compartment.

6. A placard stating, “Do Not Enter During Taxi, Takeoff, Landing, or Emergency” (or similar wording) must be located outside of, and on or near the access hatch of, the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

7. The airplane must be operated as private, not for hire, not for common carriage. This provision does not preclude the operator from receiving remuneration to the extent consistent with 14 CFR parts 125 and 91, subpart F, as applicable.

8. Use of the access hatch, and access to the aft Class C cargo compartment, is limited to the crew only.

9. A placard stating, “Crew Only Access” must be located outside of, and on or near the access hatch of, the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

10. The Airplane Flight Manual must instruct the crew to close the access hatch when crew are not accessing the aft lower-deck Class C cargo compartment.

11. Special conditions 5, 7, 8, and 10 must be documented in the Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual.

Note:

The airplane owner or operator must contact the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) prior to operating within United States airspace to ensure that this design, and related operational procedures, comply with TSA requirements.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05325 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9297; Special Conditions No. 25-648-SC] Special Conditions: Textron Aviation Inc. Model 700 Airplane; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation Inc. (Textron) Model 700 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is airplane electronic systems and networks that allow access from external sources (e.g., wireless devices, Internet connectivity) to the airplane's internal electronic components. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Textron on March 17, 2017. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9297 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On November 20, 2014, Textron applied for a type certificate for their new Model 700 airplane. The Textron Model 700 airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category executive airplane with seating for 2 crewmembers and 12 passengers, and a maximum takeoff weight of 38,514 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

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

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

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

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Textron Model 700 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A digital-systems network architecture composed of several connected networks. This network architecture and network configuration will have the capability to allow access to or by external network sources, and may be used for or interfaced with a diverse set of functions, including:

• Flight-safety-related control, communication, and navigation systems (airplane-control domain);

• Operator business and administrative support (operator-information domain); and

• Passenger information and entertainment systems (passenger-entertainment domain).

Discussion

The Textron Model 700 airplane allows connection to airplane electronic systems and networks, and access from airplane external sources (e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, Internet connectivity, service-provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the airplane's previously isolated, internal, electronic components. These airplane internal electronic components include electronic equipment and systems, instruments, networks, servers, software and electronic components, field-loadable software and hardware applications, and databases. This proposed design may otherwise result in network security vulnerabilities, if not appropriately protected, from intentional or unintentional corruption of data and systems required for the safety, operation, and maintenance of the airplane. The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate this type of system architecture, nor external wired and wireless electronic access to airplane electronic systems. Furthermore, regulations, and current system safety-assessment policy and techniques, do not address potential security vulnerabilities that could be caused by unauthorized access to airplane electronic systems and networks.

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

Applicability

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

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Textron Model 700 airplanes.

1. The applicant must ensure that the airplane electronic systems are protected from access by unauthorized sources external to the airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.

2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and continued airworthiness.

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05332 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9296; Special Conditions No. 25-647-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 Series Airplanes, Electronic Flight Control System: Lateral-Directional and Longitudinal Stability, and Low-Energy Awareness AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier) Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, and low-energy awareness, provided through an electronic flight-control system (EFCS). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on March 17, 2017. We must receive your comments by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9296 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On May 30, 2012, Bombardier applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00003NY to include the new Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. The Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes, which are derivatives of the BD-700 currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00003NY, are ultra-long-range, executive-interior business jets, with a passenger capacity of 19.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Bombardier must show that the Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00003NY, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

Lateral-directional and longitudinal stability, and low-energy awareness, through an electronic flight-control system.

Discussion

The EFCS on the Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes contain fly-by-wire control laws that can impact static stability; therefore, the conventional requirements in the regulations are not always met.

Positive static-directional stability is defined as the tendency to recover from a skid with the rudder free. Positive static-lateral stability is defined as the tendency to raise the low wing in a sideslip with the aileron controls free. These control criteria are intended to accomplish the following:

• Provide additional cues of inadvertent sideslips and skids through control-force changes.

• Ensure that short periods of unattended operation do not result in any significant changes in yaw or bank angle.

• Provide predictable roll and yaw response.

• Provide an acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to attain and maintain a coordinated turn.

Static longitudinal stability on airplanes with mechanical links to the pitch-control surface means that a pull force on the controller results in a reduction in speed relative to the trim speed, and a push force on the controller results in higher than trim speed. Longitudinal stability is required by the regulations for the following reasons:

• Speed change cues are provided to the pilot through increased and decreased forces on the controller.

• Short periods of unattended control of the airplane do not result in significant changes in attitude, airspeed, or load factor.

• A predictable pitch response is provided to the pilot.

• An acceptable level of pilot attention (workload) to attain and maintain trim speed and altitude is provided to the pilot.

• Longitudinal stability provides gust stability.

Past experience on airplanes fitted with a flight-control system providing neutral longitudinal stability reveals insufficient feedback cues to the pilot for excursion below normal operational speeds. The maximum angle-of-attack protection system limits the airplane angle of attack and prevents stall during normal operating speeds, but this system is not sufficient to prevent stall at low-speed excursions below normal operational speeds. Until intervention, the pilot receives no stability cues because the airplane remains trimmed. Additionally, due to thrust variation, flight-control laws reduce feedback from the pitching moment. Low-speed excursions may become more hazardous without the typical longitudinal stability, and recovery may become more difficult when the low-speed situation is associated with a low altitude, and with the engines at low thrust or in performance-limiting conditions.

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

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on Bombardier Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-2A12 and BD-700-2A13 series airplanes.

In lieu of the requirements of §§ 25.171, 25.173, 25.175 and 25.177(c), the following special conditions apply:

1. The airplane must be shown to have suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability in any condition normally encountered in service, including from the effects of atmospheric disturbance. The showing of suitable static lateral, directional, and longitudinal stability must be based on the airplane handling qualities, including pilot workload and pilot compensation, for specific test procedures during the flight-test evaluations.

2. The airplane must provide to the pilot adequate awareness of a low-energy (low speed, low thrust, low height) state when fitted with flight-control laws presenting neutral longitudinal stability significantly below the normal operating speeds. “Adequate awareness” means warning information that alerts the flightcrew of unsafe operating conditions, allowing the flightcrew to take appropriate corrective action.

3. The following requirement must be met for the configurations and speed specified in paragraph (a) of § 25.177. In straight, steady sideslips over the range of sideslip angles appropriate to the operation of the airplane, the rudder-control movements and forces must be substantially proportional to the angle of sideslip in a stable sense. This factor of proportionality must lie between limits found necessary for safe operation. The range of sideslip angles evaluated must include those sideslip angles resulting from the lesser of:

a. One-half of the available rudder-control input; and

b. A rudder-control force of 180 pounds.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05327 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7689; Special Conditions No. 25-645-SC] Special Conditions: Lufthansa Technik AG; Boeing Model 747-8 Series Airplanes, Large Non-Structural Glass in the Passenger Compartment AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. This airplane, as modified by Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the cabin area of an executive interior occupied by passengers and crew. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective April 17, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 8, 2012, Lufthansa Technik AG applied for a supplemental type certificate for large, non-structural glass panels in the passenger compartment in a Boeing Model 747-8 airplane. The Model 747-8 airplane is a derivative of the Boeing Model 747-400 airplane approved under type certificate no. A20WE. The airplane, as modified by Lufthansa Technik AG, is a four-engine, transport-category airplane that will have a maximum takeoff weight of 970,000 lbs, capacity for 24 crewmembers, and seating for 143 passengers.

Type Certification Basis

The certification basis for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane, as defined in type certificate no. A20WE, is Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-120, with exceptions for structures and systems that were unchanged from the 747-400 design.

Under the provisions of § 21.101, Lufthansa Technik AG must show that the Model 747-8 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A20WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change.

The certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable part that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 747-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

Lufthansa Technik AG is modifying a Boeing Model 747-8 airplane to install an executive interior. This airplane, as modified, will have a novel or unusual design feature that is the installation of large, non-structural glass panels in the cabin area of an executive interior occupied by passengers and crew. The installation of these glass items in the passenger compartment, which can be occupied during taxi, takeoff, and landing, is a novel or unusual design feature with respect to the material being installed. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature.

Discussion

No specific regulations address the design and installation of large glass components in airplane passenger cabins. Existing requirements, such as §§ 25.561, 25.562, 25.601, 25.603, 25.613, 25.775, and 25.789, in the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane certification basis applicable to this supplemental type certificate project, provide some design standards appropriate for large glass component installations. However, additional design standards for non-structural glass augmenting the existing design are needed to complement the existing requirements. The addition of glass involved in this installation, and the potentially unsafe conditions caused by damage to such components from external sources, necessitate assuring that adequate safety standards are applied to the design and installation of the feature in Boeing Model 747-8 airplanes.

For purposes of these special conditions, a large glass component is defined as a glass component weighing 4 kg (9 lbs) or more. Groupings of glass items that individually weigh less than 4 kg, but collectively weigh 4 kg or more, also would need to be included. These special conditions also apply when showing compliance with the applicable performance standards in the regulations for the installation of these components. For example, heat-release and smoke-density testing must not result in fragmentation of the component.

The use of glass has resulted in trade-offs between the one unique characteristic of glass—its capability for undistorted or controlled light transmittance, or transparency—and the negative aspects of the material, such as extreme notch-sensitivity, low fracture resistance, low modulus of elasticity, and highly variable properties. While reasonably strong, glass is nonetheless not a desirable material for traditional airplane applications because it is heavy (about the same density as aluminum), and when it fails, it breaks into extremely sharp fragments that have the potential for injury and have been known to be lethal. Thus the use of glass traditionally has been limited to windshields, and instrument and display transparencies. The regulations for certification of transport-category airplanes only address, thus only recognize, the use of glass in windshield or window applications. These regulations do address the adverse properties of glass, but even so, pilots are occasionally injured from shattered glass windshields. FAA policy allows glass on instruments and display transparencies.

Other installations of large, non-structural glass items have included the following:

• Glass panels integrated onto a stairway handrail closeout.

• Glass panels mounted in doors to allow visibility through the door when desired.

• Glass doors on some galley compartments containing small amounts of service items.

These special conditions will reduce the hazards from breakage, or from these panels' potential separation from the cabin interior.

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

Discussion of Comments

Notice of Proposed Special Conditions no. 25-16-03-SC for Lufthansa modifications to the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane was published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2016 (81 FR 9363). One comment was received.

By letter no. B-H020-REG-16-TLM-17 dated March 24, 2016, on behalf of The Boeing Company (Boeing), Capt. Terry L. McVenes, Director, System Safety & Regulatory Affairs, wrote that Boeing provides a

. . . comprehensive set of comments that identify areas of the proposed text where changes would be beneficial for better clarity and accuracy. [Boeing] consider[s] such clarifications important to ensure consistent and standardized interpretation and application of the requirements and guidance provided in the document.

Boeing recommends that proposed special condition no. 1, Material, and proposed special condition no. 2, Fragmentation, be revised to more-clearly define what each of these special conditions require, and how these two requirements are different. We agree that those two conditions could be addressed with a single test, so we combined those two conditions into a single condition, special condition no. 1, in this document, for clarity. The subsequent special conditions have been renumbered accordingly.

Boeing commented that the load conditions in special condition no. 4, in Notice no. 25-16-03-SC, which corresponds to special condition no. 3 in this document, should include all flight and landing loads, rather than only emergency landing. These special conditions are in addition to the load requirements in the certification basis for the glass installation, rather than in lieu of the load requirements. Thus, it is not necessary to repeat that all of these loads apply to this installation. The emergency-landing load condition is not normally applied to installations of this type, but for the use of large glass in the cabin, we determined that this additional safety standard is necessary. We made no changes to special condition number 3 in response to the Boeing comments.

Boeing recommends that the loading conditions in proposed special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2), Strength, and proposed special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3), Retention, be the same. Proposed special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2), Strength, is required to address the unique, extremely notch-sensitive characteristics of the glass as having low fracture resistance, low modulus of elasticity, and highly variable properties. Special condition no. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2) specifically accounts for abuse loads in addition to the loads required per subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25. Special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3) accounts for loads encountered during directional loading and rebound resulting from emergency landing loads of 14 CFR part 25. We have made minor grammatical modifications to the requirements.

Boeing recommends that, for proposed special condition no. 4 (which is now special condition no. 3), Retention, the statement, “Both the directional loading and rebound conditions must be assessed,” be removed, because these both are covered in proposed special condition no. 3. As explained above, special condition nos. 3 (which is now special condition no. 2) and 4 (which is now special condition no. 3) account for different loading conditions. We have made minor grammatical modifications to the requirements.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes as modified by Lufthansa. Should Lufthansa apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate no. A20WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued, for large glass components installed in a cabin occupied by passengers or crew who are not otherwise protected from the injurious effects of failure of the glass installations, as part of the type certification basis for Boeing 747-8 airplanes modified by Lufthansa Technik AG.

1. Material Fragmentation—The applicant must use tempered or otherwise treated glass to ensure that, when fractured, the glass breaks into small pieces with relatively dull edges. The glass component installation must retain all glass fragments to minimize the danger from flying glass shards or pieces. The applicant must demonstrate this characteristic by impact and puncture testing, and testing to failure. The applicant may conduct this test with or without any glass coating that may be utilized in the design.

2. Strength—In addition to meeting the load requirements for all flight and landing loads, including any of the applicable emergency-landing conditions in subparts C & D of 14 CFR part 25, the glass components that are located such that they are not protected from contact with cabin occupants must not fail due to abusive loading, such as impact from occupants stumbling into, leaning against, sitting on, or performing other intentional or unintentional forceful contact with the glass component. The applicant must assess the effect of design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including but not limited to embossing and etching.

3. Retention—The glass component, as installed in the airplane, must not come free of its restraint or mounting system in the event of an emergency landing, considering both the directional loading and resulting rebound conditions. The applicant must assess the effect of design details such as geometric discontinuities or surface finish, including but not limited to embossing and etching.

4. Instructions for Continued Airworthiness: The instructions for continued airworthiness must reflect the method used to fasten the panel to the cabin interior and must ensure the reliability of the methods used (e.g., life limit of adhesives, or clamp connection). The applicant must define any inspection methods and intervals based upon adhesion data from the manufacturer of the adhesive, or upon actual adhesion-test data, if necessary.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 10, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-05331 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Parts 229, 232, 239 and 249 [Release Nos. 33-10322; 34-80132; File No. S7-19-16] RIN 3235-AL95 Exhibit Hyperlinks and HTML Format AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting amendments that will require registrants that file registration statements and reports subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, or that file Forms F-10 or 20-F, to include a hyperlink to each exhibit listed in the exhibit index of these filings. To enable the inclusion of such hyperlinks, the amendments also require that registrants submit all such filings in HyperText Markup Language (“HTML”) format.

DATES:

Effective on September 1, 2017.

Compliance Dates: Registrants must comply with the final rules for filings submitted on or after September 1, 2017. A registrant that is a “smaller reporting company,” as defined in Securities Act Rule 405 and Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, or that is neither a “large accelerated filer” nor an “accelerated filer,” as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2, and that submits filings in ASCII need not comply with the final rules until September 1, 2018, one year after the effective date.

The compliance date with respect to any Form 10-D that will require hyperlinks to any exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE is delayed until Commission staff has completed technical programming changes to allow issuers to include such forms in a single submission. Once these programming changes are complete, the Commission will publish in the Federal Register a document notifying the public of the compliance date for Form 10-D.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

N. Sean Harrison, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3430, in the Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

We are adopting amendments to Item 601 of Regulation S-K,1 Forms 20-F 2 and F-10,3 and Rules 11,4 102 5 and 105 6 of Regulation S-T.7

1 17 CFR 229.601.

2 17 CFR 249.20f.

3 17 CFR 239.40.

4 17 CFR 232.11.

5 17 CFR 232.102.

6 17 CFR 232.105.

7 17 CFR 232.10 et seq.

I. Introduction

On August 31, 2016, we proposed rule and form amendments to require registrants to include a hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index in any registration statement or report that is required to include exhibits under Item 601 of Regulation S-K or under Form F-10 or Form 20-F.8 In addition, because the text-based American Standard Code for Information Interchange (“ASCII”) format cannot support functional hyperlinks, we proposed to require registrants filing such registration statements or reports to file these forms on EDGAR in HTML. These proposals were intended to facilitate easier access to these exhibits for investors and other users of the information.

8See Release No. 33-10201 (Aug. 31, 2016) [81 FR 62689] (the “Proposing Release”).

We received comment letters from individuals, professional and trade associations, law firms and other interested parties.9 The commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposal to require registrants to include hyperlinks to the exhibits filed with registration statements or reports. Some commenters suggested that we adopt additional requirements, such as requiring registrants to refile exhibits that were previously filed in paper. Other commenters expressed concerns about some aspects of the proposed amendments and suggested modifications to the proposals. We have reviewed and considered all of the comments that we received on the proposals. The final rules reflect changes made in response to these comments. We discuss the changes in more detail below.

9 The commenters were: The Center for Audit Quality (“CAQ”); the Corporate Governance Coalition for Investor Value (“CGCIV”); the Council of Institutional Investors (“CII”); the Credit Roundtable (“CRT”); Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (“Davis Polk”); the Chamber of Commerce; Ernst & Young LLP (“E&Y”); the Investor Advocacy Clinic at Georgia State University College of Law (“IAC”); Veronique Joseph; Mary Sue; the Maryland State Bar Association (“MDSBA”); Reed Smith LLP; the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”); the Structured Finance Industry Group (“SFIG”); Jacob Vollmer; and John Wahh.

II. Discussion of the Final Amendments A. Hyperlinking to Exhibits

We proposed to amend Item 601 of Regulation S-K and Rules 11 and 102 10 of Regulation S-T to require registrants to include a hyperlink to each filed exhibit as identified in the exhibit index, unless the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption under Rules 201 11 or 202 12 of Regulation S-T or pursuant to Rule 311 13 of Regulation S-T. We proposed corresponding amendments to Form F-10 and Form 20-F to require foreign private issuers to include hyperlinks to the exhibits filed with these forms. We are adopting these requirements substantially as proposed, but with some changes reflecting comments we received.14

10 Rule 102 of Regulation S-T requires each exhibit to an electronic filing to be filed electronically unless there is an applicable exemption.

11 17 CFR 232.201.

12 17 CFR 232.202.

13 17 CFR 232.311.

14 We are also adopting an amendment to Rule 102(a) of Regulation S-T to correct an outdated reference to a rule that was rescinded.

1. Proposed Amendments

Item 601 of Regulation S-K specifies the exhibits that registrants must file with registration statements filed under the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) 15 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 16 and with periodic and current reports under the Exchange Act, which we refer to collectively in this release as the “registration statements and reports.” Item 601 also requires registrants to include an exhibit index that lists each exhibit included with the filing.17 Once an exhibit is filed, registrants can incorporate it by reference to meet the exhibit requirements in subsequent filings to the extent permitted by our rules or the applicable disclosure form.18

15 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.

16 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

17See Item 601(a)(2) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.601(a)(2)]. Rule 102(d) of Regulation S-T [17 CFR 232.102(d)] and Exchange Act Rule 0-3(c) [17 CFR 240.0-3(c)] also require filings with exhibits to include an exhibit index.

18See, e.g., Item 10(d) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.10(d)]. Item 10(d) provides, with certain exceptions, that where rules, regulations, or instructions to forms of the Commission permit incorporation by reference, a document may be so incorporated by reference to the specific document and to the prior filing or submission in which such document was physically filed or submitted.

Under the current system, someone seeking to retrieve and access an exhibit that has been incorporated by reference must review the exhibit index to determine the filing in which the exhibit is included, and then must search through the registrant's filings to locate the relevant filing. This process can be both time consuming and cumbersome.

We proposed to apply the amendments to nearly all of the registration statements and reports that are required to include exhibits under Item 601, specifically Forms S-1,19 S-3,20 S-4,21 S-8,22 S-11,23 F-1,24 F-3,25 F-4,26 SF-1,27 and SF-3 28 under the Securities Act; and Forms 10,29 10-K,30 10-Q, 8-K,31 and 10-D 32 under the Exchange Act. In addition, we proposed corresponding amendments to Form F-10 and Form 20-F. However, the proposed amendments excluded the exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE as well as any XBRL exhibits. We excluded the exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE because the form is used solely to facilitate the filing of tagged data and related information that must be filed as exhibits to that form. Form ABS-EE does not permit exhibits to be incorporated by reference and is filed in unconverted code. XBRL exhibits are similarly filed in unconverted code.33 Therefore, we concluded preliminarily that it was not necessary to require hyperlinks to exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE or to XBRL exhibits.

19 17 CFR 239.11.

20 17 CFR 239.13.

21 17 CFR 239.25.

22 17 CFR 239.16b.

23 17 CFR 239.18.

24 17 CFR 239.31.

25 17 CFR 239.33.

26 17 CFR 239.34.

27 17 CFR 239.44.

28 17 CFR 239.45.

29 17 CFR 249.210.

30 17 CFR 249.310.

31 17 CFR 249.308.

32 17 CFR 249.312.

33 The Commission announced in June 2016 a time-limited program to permit registrants to voluntarily file structured financial statement data using Inline XBRL. Inline XBRL allows registrants to file the required information and data tags in one document rather than requiring a separate exhibit for the interactive data. Order Granting Limited and Conditional Exemption Under Section 36(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from Compliance with Interactive Data File Exhibit Requirement in Forms 6-K, 8-K, 10-Q, 10-K, 20-F and 40-F to Facilitate Inline Filing of Tagged Financial Data, Release No. 34-78041 (June 13, 2016) [81 FR 39741]. In a companion release issued on March 1, 2017, the Commission proposed amendments that, among other things, would require the use of the Inline XBRL format for the submission of operating company financial statement information and mutual fund risk/return summaries. Inline XBRL Filing of Tagged Data, Release No. 33-10323 (Mar. 1, 2017). The amendments we are adopting in this release, the Inline XBRL proposals and the voluntary filing program are part of the Commission's continuing efforts and interest in modernizing the format of the information filed on EDGAR to make it more accessible to investors and other users.

The proposed amendments would require a registrant to include an active hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index of the filing. If the filing is a periodic or current report under the Exchange Act, a registrant would be required to include an active hyperlink to each exhibit listed in the exhibit index when the report is filed. If the filing is a registration statement, the registrant would only be required to include an active hyperlink to each exhibit in the version of the registration statement that becomes effective. This was to ensure that the most complete exhibit index was hyperlinked and located in one primary document.

2. Comments on the Proposed Rule

Commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposed amendments to require exhibit hyperlinks.34 Many commenters agreed that hyperlinking to exhibits would make it easier for investors and other users to retrieve and access these documents from Commission filings.35 Several commenters stated that the proposal would significantly reduce the amount of time required for investors to access information and also enhance the functionality of the EDGAR filing system.36 Two commenters supported the proposed exclusion of Form ABS-EE exhibits and XBRL exhibits because the exhibits are directly attached to that Form ABS-EE filing, and therefore an investor should have no difficulties locating the applicable attached exhibits.37 The same two commenters supported the proposed exclusion of XBRL exhibits.

34 No commenters opposed these proposals.

35See, e.g., letters from CII, E&Y, IAC and MDSBA.

36See letters from CII, CRT and IAC.

37See letters from Davis Polk and SFIG.

We requested comment on whether we should we revise Form 6-K 38 filed by foreign private issuers or other multi-jurisdictional disclosure system forms used by certain Canadian issuers, such as Forms F-7,39 F-8,40 and F-80,41 to require exhibit hyperlinks. One commenter stated that the benefits of requiring exhibit hyperlinks in Form 6-K would be minor.42 This commenter observed that Form 6-K does not have any prescribed exhibit requirements, in contrast to Form 20-F, which does require the filing of relevant disclosure documents as exhibits.

38 17 CFR 249.306.

39 17 CFR 239.37.

40 17 CFR 239.38.

41 17 CFR 239.41.

42See letter from Davis Polk.

In the Proposing Release, we also requested comment on whether we should require registrants to include hyperlinks to the exhibits filed with an initial registration statement and each pre-effective amendment to the registration statement. One commenter supported requiring exhibit hyperlinks in the version of the registration statement that becomes effective, as proposed.43 This commenter stated that the effective version of the registration statement would be the version that is most often reviewed by an investor and other users, and because exhibits may be revised or replaced during the registration process, it would be the version that properly referenced all of the exhibits filed with the registration statement that had not been replaced or revised.

43See letter from SFIG.

Two commenters stated that exhibit hyperlinks should be required in the pre-effective amendment to the registration statement that includes the preliminary prospectus distributed in connection with an offering.44 One of these commenters stated that the information found in exhibits would be most relevant when the preliminary prospectus used to market an offering is distributed because that is when investors are beginning to make an investment decision.45

44See letters from Reed Smith and SIFMA.

45See letter from SIFMA.

Another commenter supported requiring exhibit hyperlinks in the initial registration statement and each subsequent pre-effective amendment rather than just in the registration statement that becomes effective.46 This commenter stated that exhibit hyperlinks would improve the navigability of the pre-effective amendments, and that the incremental burden of including hyperlinks in the initial registration statement and any pre-effective amendments would not be significant because each subsequent pre-effective amendment would only add or update hyperlinks (in the event of superseded or amended exhibits) to the exhibit index that was last filed.

46See letter from Davis Polk.

We also requested comment on whether we should require registrants to refile in electronic format any exhibit previously filed in paper so that a registrant can include a hyperlink from the exhibit index to such exhibits. We received a number of comments on this question. Three commenters stated we should require registrants to file electronically all previously filed paper exhibits.47 Two of these commenters stated that it would be particularly beneficial to investors if organizational documents, such as certificates of incorporation, were made available on EDGAR.48 The other commenter maintained that any burden and expense of refiling a previously filed paper exhibit would be minimal because it was unlikely that many registrants would have a significant number of paper exhibits created prior to the time that the registrant became subject to mandated electronic filing on EDGAR.49 A different commenter suggested that registrants should be permitted to post organizational documents on their Web sites as an alternative to refiling paper exhibits.50

47See letters from CII, MDSBA and Reed Smith.

48See letters from CII and Reed Smith.

49See letter from MDSBA.

50See letter from Reed Smith.

Conversely, three commenters did not support requiring registrants to refile previously filed paper exhibits.51 Two of these commenters stated that requiring registrants to refile paper exhibits could significantly increase the cost burden to registrants.52 The other commenter suggested that, rather than requiring the refiling of paper exhibits, we should instead encourage registrants to voluntarily refile exhibits originally filed in paper.53

51See letters from Davis Polk, SFIG and SIFMA.

52See letters from Davis Polk and SFIG.

53See letter from SIFMA.

3. Final Rule

After considering the comments, we are adopting the exhibit hyperlinking requirement substantially as proposed with some modifications. Under the final rules, registrants will be required to include a hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index, unless the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption under Rules 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T, or pursuant to Rule 311 of Regulation S-T. This requirement will apply to the forms for which exhibits are required under Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

However, as proposed, the final rules exclude any XBRL exhibits.54 The final rules also exclude exhibits that are filed with Form ABS-EE. Since these exhibits are directly attached to that Form ABS-EE filing, which is essentially a cover page, an investor should have no difficulties locating the applicable exhibits.55 In addition, we are adopting, as proposed, the amendments to Forms F-10 and 20-F to require exhibit hyperlinks in these forms. At this time, we are not requiring exhibit hyperlinks in other forms under the multi-jurisdictional disclosure system used by certain Canadian issuers or in Form 6-K, as we agree with the commenter's suggestion that hyperlinks in these forms may have less utility because exhibits, and an exhibit index, are not required for these forms.56

54 Although these exhibits are excluded under the final rules, the Commission is continuing efforts to modernize the format of information filed on EDGAR. See note 33 above.

55 Asset-backed issuers are required to incorporate by reference Form ABS-EE information in Form 10-D. Therefore, under the final rule, issuers will be required to include hyperlinks in the Form 10-D to any asset data file or asset-related document filed on Form ABS-EE that is incorporated by reference into the Form 10-D. We are, however, delaying the compliance date for any Form 10-D that will require hyperlinks to any exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE. See Section II.B.3 below.

56See letter from Davis Polk.

We are persuaded by commenters that exhibit hyperlinks in the initial registration statement and each subsequent pre-effective amendment, rather than just the registration statement that becomes effective, would further enhance the navigability of these documents, which may be used by investors to begin making investment decisions before effectiveness. Accordingly, we are amending Item 601 of Regulation S-K to require that each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE or an exhibit filed in XBRL) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the registration statement or report, or if the exhibit is incorporated by reference, an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR.

In order to provide electronic filers time to prepare filings to include hyperlinks to exhibits, the final rules will take effect on September 1, 2017. However, we encourage early compliance with the new filing requirements.

As noted above, a few commenters suggested that we require the refiling of any exhibits previously filed only in paper. In particular, commenters stated that articles of incorporation and by-laws should be required to be refiled electronically, given the importance of these documents to investors.57 We are not amending the final rules to require registrants to refile electronically any documents in paper, including organizational documents. In our experience, only a limited number of registrants have not electronically filed their articles of incorporation or by-laws, and we are mindful of commenters' concerns about imposing additional compliance burdens.58

57See letters from CII and MDSBA.

58 For example, in connection with the economic analysis of the final rules, we examined a random sample of 146 Form 10-K filings made from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. The articles of incorporation and by-laws filed with the Form 10-Ks in the sample were all filed electronically. See Section IV.A below. In addition, we note that registrants have the option to restate in electronic format an exhibit that was previously filed in paper. See Rule 102(a) of Regulation S-T.

B. HTML Format for Registration Statements and Reports

In connection with the proposed exhibit hyperlinking requirements, we proposed amendments to Rule 105 of Regulation S-T to require registrants to file registration statements and reports that include exhibits in the HTML format.59 We are adopting this proposal with a few changes made in response to comments.

59 We are continuing to consider ways to further enhance the presentation and usability of the exhibit index. For example, HTML tags identifying the exhibit index would make it possible to include a hyperlink to the index on a registrant's search results EDGAR landing page, which could allow investors and other users to more easily access the exhibits.

1. Proposed Rules

Rule 105 of Regulation S-T sets forth the limitations on, and liability for, the use of HTML documents and hyperlinks in electronic filings. Rule 105, among other things, currently permits hyperlinking to other documents within the same filing, such as exhibits, and to documents contained in other forms or schedules that have been previously filed on EDGAR. In addition, Rule 105 prohibits hyperlinking to Web sites, locations or other documents that are outside of the EDGAR system.

Currently, registrants must submit electronic filings to the Commission using the EDGAR system in either the ASCII format or the HTML format. HTML has features that allow documents prepared in this format to include hyperlinks to another place within the same document or to a separate document. In contrast, documents prepared in the ASCII format cannot support functional hyperlinks.60 Because the ASCII format does not support hyperlink functionality, the exhibit hyperlinking requirement would be feasible only if registrants are required to file in HTML. Under the proposed amendment, registrants would be required to file registration statements and reports subject to the exhibit filing requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, and Forms 20-F and F-10, in HTML format. In the Proposing Release, we noted that, during 2015, only 175 registrants made filings in ASCII and that the HTML format has largely replaced ASCII as the filing format for the forms that would be affected by the amendments.61

60 HTML documents, however, can hyperlink to an ASCII document.

61 During the 2015 calendar year, over 114,000 of the affected forms were filed on EDGAR. Approximately 845 (less than one percent) of those filings were submitted in the ASCII format.

2. Comments on the Proposed Rules

No commenter opposed the proposed amendment to require HTML filings and two commenters specifically supported it.62 Three commenters suggested that we establish a phase-in or transition period for ASCII filers.63 Two of these commenters advocated providing smaller reporting companies and non-accelerated filers with one additional year beyond the compliance date for accelerated filers to comply with the exhibit hyperlinking proposals,64 and the third commenter did not specify the length of the extension.

62See letters from Davis Polk and Reed Smith.

63See letters from CGCIV, Chamber of Commerce and Reed Smith.

64See letters from CGCIV and Chamber of Commerce.

In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on whether there are any particular difficulties in requiring registrants to provide hyperlinks to the exhibits identified in Item 601 of Regulation S-K that are filed with a registration statement or report, as proposed. Several commenters took this opportunity to provide their views on the liability issues concerning inadvertent or inaccurate hyperlinks. Two commenters expressed concern that Rule 105(c) of Regulation S-T would extend civil and antifraud liability to hyperlinks that are automatically created by software programs.65 Three commenters contended that inaccurate or inactive hyperlinks should not give rise to any liability or other penalties.66 Two commenters stated registrants should not be required to amend a previously filed report to correct an inaccurate or failed hyperlink.67 One commenter suggested that we should allow a registrant to make a correction to an inaccurate hyperlink in the registrant's next report that includes an exhibit index.68 The other commenter suggested that we consider providing a mechanism to alert investors to inactive or obsolete hyperlinked exhibits and provide an efficient and simple process to correct such hyperlinks.69

65See letters from CGCIV and Chamber of Commerce. In previous guidance, the Commission noted: “Some word processing programs automatically transform inactive textual references to electronic addresses (URLs) to hyperlinks. In addition, some browsers transform URLs to hyperlinks. We do not wish to discourage filers from including URLs to their own Web sites or to our Web site at www.sec.gov in their filings. Filers who include these URLs in HTML filings, accordingly, should take reasonable steps when they create the document in order to prevent URLs from being converted into hyperlinks. If this is done, Rule 105 should not be read as imposing liability on any such hyperlinks that may be created after the filing is made.” Release No. 33-7855 (Apr. 24, 2000) [81 FR 62689].

66See letters from Reed Smith, SFIG and SIFMA.

67See letters from E&Y and Reed Smith.

68See letter from Reed Smith.

69See letter from E&Y.

3. Final Rule

After considering the comments, we are adopting the amendments to Rule 105 of Regulation S-T substantially as proposed but with minor modifications. Under the final rules, registrants will be required to file in HTML format a registration statement or report subject to the exhibit filing requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, and Forms 20-F and F-10. While the affected registration statements and reports will be required to be filed in HTML pursuant to the amendments to Rule 105, registrants may continue to file in ASCII any schedules or forms that are not subject to the exhibit filing requirements under Item 601, such as proxy statements, or other documents included with a filing, such as an exhibit.

In response to comments, we are adopting a phase-in period for non-accelerated filers 70 and smaller reporting companies.71 Non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies that submit filings in ASCII will have an additional one year after the effective date of the final rules to begin to comply with the rules. During the phase-in period, these filers may continue to file registration statements or reports in ASCII and will not need to include hyperlinks to the exhibits listed in the exhibit indexes of their filings. We are persuaded that a delay in the compliance date for these registrants may help mitigate some of the cost burdens for smaller reporting companies related to switching over to the HTML format.

70 Although the term “non-accelerated filer” is not defined in Commission rules, we use this term to refer to a reporting company that does not meet the definition of either an “accelerated filer” or a “large accelerated filer” under Exchange Act Rule 12b-2.

71 “Smaller reporting company” is defined in Securities Act Rule 405 [17 CFR 230.405], Exchange Act Rule 12b-2 [17 CFR 240.12b-2], and Item 10(f)(1) of Regulation S-K [17 CFR 229.10(f)(1)].

We are also adopting a phase-in period for certain filings on Form 10-D. Currently, the staff is working on programming changes to EDGAR that will allow issuers to include the Form 10-D and Form ABS-EE in a single submission so that the required hyperlinks can be created at the time the Form 10-D is filed. The implementation of these programming changes will not be completed by the effective date of the final rules. Accordingly, we are delaying the compliance date with respect to any Form 10-D that will require hyperlinks to any exhibit filed with Form ABS-EE. We will publish a document on our Web site and in the Federal Register announcing the compliance date for Form 10-D when it is determined.

A few commenters noted that it would not be possible to hyperlink to an exhibit that is filed for the first time with a registration statement or report because no web address would be available for that exhibit before the filing is made. Although these commenters make a valid point, as explained below, we do not believe this will prevent registrants from complying with the final rules. Rule 11 of Regulation S-T defines the term “hyperlinks” to mean the representation of an Internet address in a form that an Internet browser application can recognize as an Internet address.72 We used the term “hyperlinks” more generically in the Proposing Release to include, in addition to links to a previously filed exhibit that is being incorporated by reference into the registration statement or report, links from a registration statement or report to an exhibit that is being filed at the same time. As we noted in the Proposing Release, HTML has features that allow electronic documents prepared in this format to include links to another place within the same document or to a separate document. Thus, under the EDGAR system, registrants can include a link to an exhibit that is filed with a registration statement or report. In connection with the adoption of these amendments, we will be issuing an updated EDGAR Filer Manual that will describe the procedures needed to create a hyperlink to an exhibit that the registrant previously filed with a registration statement or report and the procedures needed to create a link to an exhibit that is being filed at the same time as the registration statement or report.

72 In the Proposing Release, we proposed a minor change to the definition of the term “hypertext links or hyperlinks” in Rule 11 of Regulation S-T to delete the term “hypertext links.” We are adopting this change.

In response to the concerns of several commenters regarding the means to correct inaccurate exhibit hyperlinks, we are adding an instruction to Rule 105 stating that a registrant must correct a nonfunctioning hyperlink or hyperlink to the wrong exhibit by filing, in the case of a registration statement that is not yet effective, a pre-effective amendment to such registration statement, or in the case of a registration statement that is effective or an Exchange Act report, in the next Exchange Act periodic report that requires, or includes, an exhibit pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K (or in the case of a foreign private issuer, pursuant to Form 20-F or Form F-10).73 Furthermore, we note that where a filing contains an inaccurate exhibit hyperlink, the inaccurate hyperlink alone would not render the filing materially deficient, nor affect a registrant's eligibility to use short-form registration statements.

73 Once the registration statement is effective, the registrant must correct an inaccurate hyperlink in its next Exchange Act periodic report that contains an exhibit index, or alternatively, the registrant could correct the inaccurate hyperlink by filing a post-effective amendment to the registration statement.

In addition, we remind registrants that EDGAR does not accept documents containing web addresses that hyperlink to external Web sites.74 In light of the fact that many of the liability issues identified by commenters appear most relevant for hyperlinks to external Web sites, we do not believe that a reexamination of the liability treatment of hyperlinks is warranted at this time. However, as we continue to consider the expanded use of hyperlinks in Commission filings, we will bear these considerations in mind.

74See Rule 105(b) of Regulation S-T. If a document is filed containing a hyperlink to an external Web site, EDGAR will reject the document and the electronic filer must resubmit the document without the hyperlink to the external Web site.

III. Other Matters

If any of the provisions of these rules, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

IV. Economic Analysis

We are adopting amendments that will require registrants that file registration statements and reports that are subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, or that file on Forms F-10 or 20-F, to include a hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index of these filings and to submit all such filings in HTML format.75

75 The amendments exclude exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE and XBRL exhibits.

We are sensitive to the costs and benefits of the final rules. In this economic analysis, we examine the current regulatory framework and market practices, which together constitute a baseline for analysis, and discuss the anticipated economic effects of the amendments, relative to this baseline, and their potential effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation.76 We also consider the potential costs and benefits of reasonable alternatives to the amendments.

76 Exchange Act Section 23(a)(2) [15 U.S.C. 78w(a)] requires us, when adopting rules, to consider the impact that any new rule would have on competition. In addition, Section 2(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77b(b)] and Section 3(f) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 78c(f)] direct us, when engaging in rulemaking that requires us to consider or determine whether an action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, to consider, in addition to the protection of investors, whether the action will promote efficiency, competition, and capital formation.

Where practicable, we attempt to quantify the economic effects of the amendments; however, in certain cases, we are unable to do so because we lack necessary information. We do, however, provide a qualitative assessment of the likely economic effects. The proposing release requested comment on all aspects of the economic effects, including the costs and benefits of the proposals and possible alternatives to the proposed amendments. The Commission also solicited comment in the proposing release on whether the proposals, if adopted, would promote efficiency, competition, or capital formation, or have an impact or burden on competition.

A. Baseline

The amendments will affect all registrants that file registration statements and reports that are required to include exhibits under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, specifically Forms S-1, S-3, S-4, S-8, S-11, SF-1, SF-3, F-1, F-3, and F-4 under the Securities Act and Forms 10, 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and 10-D under the Exchange Act. In addition, the amendments will affect registrants that file on Forms F-10 and 20-F. Although registrants that currently file registration statements and reports in HTML format will not be affected by the requirement to file in HTML format, they will be required to include hyperlinks from the exhibits identified in the exhibit index to the exhibits that are filed with the document or that were previously filed with another document. Because the ASCII format does not support hyperlink capabilities, registrants that currently file these forms and reports in ASCII format will be required to file in HTML in addition to complying with the exhibit hyperlinking requirement.

We estimate that, from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, 9,221 registrants filed either a registration statement or a report in HTML, while 152 registrants made filings in ASCII. Table 1 below shows the number of registration statements and reports that registrants filed with the Commission from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Table 1 also presents the number of filings submitted in HTML format and ASCII format, respectively, including amendments. Because hyperlinking is not available in ASCII format, we present the baseline analysis of filings separately for HTML and ASCII formats.

77 The number of Form 10s includes Forms 10-12B and 10-12G.

78 The number of Form 8-Ks includes Form 8-K12B.

Table 1—Number of Registration Statements and Reports Filed From October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 Number of filings
  • (including
  • Amendments)
  • Securities Act
  • registration statements and Exchange Act forms
  • HTML ASCII
    Form S-1 2,295 12 Form S-3 940 6 Form S-4 716 0 Form S-8 1,988 1 Form S-11 128 0 Form SF-1 6 0 Form SF-3 154 0 Form F-1 237 0 Form F-3 113 0 Form F-4 90 0 Form F-10 117 0 Form 10 77 340 54 Form 20-F 751 0 Form 10-K 8,349 65 Form 10-Q 21,278 142 Form 8-K 78 73,337 282 Form 10-D 5,947 236

    As shown in Table 1, among the types of forms affected by the amendments, Forms S-1, S-8, 10-K, 10-Q, 10-D, and 8-K were the most frequently filed in HTML format from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. As a proxy for registrants' size, we used the filer status that registrants reported in their Form 10-K from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. We found that 32.5% of the registration statements and reports (including amendments) filed in HTML format were filed by large accelerated filers, 21.3% by accelerated filers and 35.2% by smaller reporting companies or non-accelerated filers.79

    79 The remaining 11% of filings in HTML format from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 were filed by registrants whose filer status was not indicated.

    From October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016, a limited set of form types were filed in ASCII format. In particular, Forms 8-K, 10-D, 10-Q and 10-K were most frequently filed in ASCII format. We found that, of the registration statements and reports (including amendments) filed in ASCII, 4.5% were filed by large accelerated filers, 0.8% by accelerated filers, and 56% by smaller reporting companies or non-accelerated filers.80

    80 The remaining 38.7% of sampled filings in ASCII format were filed by registrants whose filer status was not indicated.

    To draw a baseline indicative of the current disclosure practices by HTML filers, we selected a random sample of 600 filings of registration statements and reports (including amended filings) from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. This sample included 146 randomly selected Form 10-K filings and 454 randomly selected other filings in HTML format.

    The amendments will require registrants to include hyperlinks for all exhibits listed in the exhibit index, whether included with the filing or incorporated by reference from a previously filed document. Table 2 below shows the average and median number of exhibits 81 listed in the random sample of 600 filings by the type of forms affected by the amendments.

    81 We did not include XBRL exhibits because these exhibits are not covered by the final rules.

    Table 2—Number of Exhibits Number of exhibits
  • listed in the index
  • Average 82 Median 83 Number of exhibits
  • filed with the form
  • Average Median Number of exhibits
  • incorporated by reference
  • Average Median Number of
  • sampled filings
  • Form S-1 29.1 20.0 10.8 5.0 18.3 0.0 16 Form S-3 10.4 10.0 4.5 4.0 5.9 4.0 17 Form S-4 50.6 18.0 11.9 9.0 37.2 14.0 9 Form S-8 5.6 5.0 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.5 24 Form S-11 24.7 30.0 14.3 10.0 10.3 0.0 3 Form SF-1 0 Form SF-3 8.4 6.0 6.1 4.0 2.3 2.0 11 Form F-1 21.8 22.5 20.6 22.5 1.1 0.0 8 Form F-3 8.0 7.5 4.8 4.0 3.25 1.5 8 Form F-4 20.2 23.0 15.2 17.0 1.0 0.5 5 Form F-10 17.0 17.0 15.0 15.0 2.0 2.0 1 Form 10 6.6 2.0 6.6 2.0 0.0 0.0 7 Form 20-F 32.6 34.0 11.2 8.0 21.4 27.0 5 Form 10-K 34.8 31.0 7.5 6.0 26.6 24.5 146 Form 10-Q 7.1 5.5 4.0 4.0 3.1 0.5 50 Form 8-K 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.1 0.0 265 Form 10-D 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 25 All Forms 19.5 10.0 5.7 4.0 13.8 3.0 600 Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4, F-10, 20-F and 10-K 33.4 28.0 8.8 11.0 23.8 18.0 193 Other Forms & Reports 3.0 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.9 0.0 407

    Table 2 shows a significant variation in the number of exhibits listed in the exhibit index across different types of forms. Among the Securities Act registration statements, Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4 and F-10 typically contain a large number of exhibits, while among the Exchange Act reports, Forms 20-F and 10-K contain significantly more exhibits than other form types. Overall, Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4, F-10, 20-F and 10-K had a median number of 33 exhibits, compared to a median of three exhibits in the other nine types of registration statements and reports. Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4, F-10, 20-F and 10-K also had significantly more exhibits incorporated by reference than the other nine types of registration statements and reports affected by the amendments.

    82 Average represents the sum of number of exhibits divided by the number of sampled forms for each form type.

    83 Median represents the middle number of exhibits for each form type when the numbers of exhibits are listed from the smallest to the largest. For instance, for Forms S-1, the number of exhibits listed in the index ranged from 1 to 125, with 20 as the middle number.

    In general, the number of exhibits slightly decreases with a registrant's size for the sampled filings submitted from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Of the 600 sampled filings, the filings by non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies had a median of five exhibits; filings by accelerated filers had a median of three exhibits; and large accelerated filers had a median of two exhibits.

    Of the 600 sampled filings, we found that the exhibit indexes of only 48 (8%) of the filings included hyperlinks. We found 14 out of 48 filings included hyperlinks for all exhibits. In the 34 instances when registrants did not include hyperlinks for all exhibits, they were more likely to include hyperlinks to exhibits incorporated by reference. Of the sampled filings on Form S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4, F-10, 20-F and 10-K, approximately 4% had exhibit indexes that contained hyperlinks for one or more exhibits in the index (“partially hyperlinked”). In particular, while we found four fully hyperlinked Form 10-Ks, 18 of the 146 sampled Form 10-Ks were partially hyperlinked.

    84 Pursuant to Securities Act Rule 411 [17 CFR 230.411] and Exchange Act Rule 12b-23 [17 CFR 240.12b-23], registrants can, under certain conditions, incorporate information by reference in answer, or partial answer, to an item of a registration statement or report. Generally, the incorporated information must be filed as an exhibit to the registration statement or report. In our analysis of the 600 sampled filings, we found several exhibits that were filed for this purpose.

    Table 3—Type of Forms From Which Exhibits Were Incorporated by Reference Exhibit incorporated
  • by reference
  • from:
  • Form S-1
  • (%)
  • Form F-1
  • (%)
  • Form 10-K
  • (%)
  • Form 20-F
  • (%)
  • Form 8-K
  • (%)
  • Form 10-Q
  • (%)
  • Other forms
  • with
  • exhibit index requirement
  • (%)
  • Other forms
  • without
  • exhibit index
  • requirement 84
  • (%)
  • Into: Form S-1 20 0 14 0 31 11 22 1 Form S-3 14 0 2 0 57 10 9 8 Form S-4 42 0 10 0 24 6 10 8 Form S-8 30 0 5 2 30 13 12 8 Form S-11 0 0 0 0 45 3 0 52 Form SF-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form SF-3 0 0 0 0 44 0 56 0 Form F-1 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 33 Form F-3 0 77 0 4 0 0 0 19 Form F-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 Form F-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 3 Form 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Form 20-F 1 7 0 73 0 0 1 18 Form 10-K 8 0 19 0 43 18 7 4 Form 10-Q 6 0 13 1 55 13 6 5 Form 8-K 10 0 10 0 45 10 0 25 Form 10-D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

    Under the amendments, the hyperlink requirement will make exhibits incorporated by reference in the affected registration statements and reports more easily accessible. For the exhibits incorporated by reference that were listed in the 600 sampled filings, Table 3 shows the form types from which the exhibits were incorporated. The majority of exhibits were incorporated from the same registration statements and reports affected by the amendments. For example, exhibits in Forms S-1 were largely incorporated from previously filed Forms 8-K, 10-K, S-1, and 10-Q. Only a small percentage of exhibits were incorporated from form types without an exhibit index requirement, such as proxy statements.

    ASCII Filers

    We reviewed 200 registration statements and reports filed in ASCII format from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. In particular, we reviewed 60 Form 10-Ks and a randomly selected sample of 140 other forms filed in ASCII format, including amendments. The exhibit indexes in the ASCII filings listed significantly lower average and median numbers of exhibits than in HTML filings. For example, the sampled Form 10-Qs and 10-Q/As reported a median of one exhibit. The 60 Form 10-Ks and 10-K/As filed in ASCII format from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 included a median of two exhibits, mostly filed with the form. Given that the ASCII format does not support hyperlinks, no exhibit index included hyperlinks.

    B. Potential Economic Effects

    Relative to unlinked cross-references, hyperlinks will not only supply users with the location of a specific exhibit, but also allow users to reach that location more easily and quickly. Requiring exhibit hyperlinks will help investors and other users to access a particular exhibit more efficiently as they will not need to search within the filing or through different filings made over time to locate the exhibit. Many commenters agreed that hyperlinking would make it easier for investors and other users to retrieve exhibit information from SEC filings.85 Several commenters agreed that hyperlinking would reduce the amount of time required for investors to access exhibit information.86

    85See, e.g., letters from CII, E&Y, IAC and MDSBA.

    86See letters from CII, CRT and IAC.

    We expect that hyperlinks will be more beneficial in reducing search costs in the case of exhibits incorporated by reference than in the case of exhibits filed with the filing, and in particular, we expect these benefits to be most pronounced in the case of incorporation by reference from a filing that was not recently filed because more recent filings are displayed first on the EDGAR search results page. Further, we expect hyperlinks will have greater benefits in the case of registrants that submit more filings. Overall, we believe the amendments will reduce search costs for investors. For example, depending on the nature of the business or size of the registrant, a registrant may file multiple registration statements or reports in a given quarter or fiscal year. Requiring exhibit hyperlinks will make it easier for investors and other users to find and access a particular exhibit that was originally filed with a previous filing.

    The final rule will also require registrants to include hyperlinks to all exhibits required by Item 601 of Regulation S-K, Form F-10 and Form 20-F in each amendment. We believe hyperlinking to exhibits filed with each pre-effective amendment will be particularly beneficial to investors who begin to make an investment decision before the registration statement becomes effective, such as investors considering the preliminary prospectus.87

    87 Several commenters supported requiring exhibit hyperlinks in pre-effective amendments. See letters from Davis Polk, Reed Smith and SIFMA.

    To the extent that hyperlinks ease the navigation process for investors and other users, hyperlinks may also facilitate a more thorough review of a registrant's registration statements and reports and encourage more effective monitoring over time. The potential reduction of search costs and the enhanced ability of investors to review a registrant's disclosure may result in more informed investment and voting decisions, potentially enhancing allocative efficiency and capital formation by registrants.

    As a result of the amendments, both HTML and ASCII registrants will incur compliance costs to include hyperlinks in their exhibit indexes. The cost of inserting a hyperlink to an exhibit incorporated by reference would likely be greater than the cost of inserting a link to an exhibit filed with the document. While the average cost itself of inserting a hyperlink is minimal,88 the total hyperlinking costs for registrants would be a function of two main factors: (1) How many registration statements and reports a registrant files that require an exhibit index; and (2) how many exhibits in the exhibit index of these registration statements and reports are either filed with the filing or incorporated by reference and would be subject to the hyperlinking requirement.

    88 For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, we estimate that registrants will incur, on average, between one and four burden hours to hyperlink to required exhibits, depending on the specific form type. See Section IV.D below.

    For filers reporting in HTML, our baseline analysis indicates that few filers currently include fully hyperlinked exhibit indexes in registration statements and reports. Our analysis of a random sample of registration statements and reports filed between October 1, 2015 and September 30, 2016 indicates that approximately 8% of HTML filers included at least a partially hyperlinked exhibit index in their filings. For these HTML filers, the cost of fully hyperlinking their exhibit indexes could be less than for those HTML filers that have not previously hyperlinked their exhibit indexes.

    In addition to these costs, filers reporting in ASCII will incur costs to switch to HTML. While the registrants that file in ASCII and therefore will be affected by the amendment to require HTML are primarily small entities, we expect that the costs of switching to HTML will not be significant given the cost of software with built-in HTML and hyperlink features is minimal. In addition, the final rule will allow an extended phase-in period for non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies. The delay in compliance should mitigate some of the burdens for those entities that are more likely to be adversely affected by the cost of switching from making filings in ASCII to HTML.

    Overall, given the modest costs involved, we do not expect that the amendments will have significant competitive effects for registrants.

    C. Alternatives

    We considered five alternatives to the final rules. First, instead of requiring hyperlinks in the exhibit index within registration statements and reports requiring an exhibit index under Item 601 of Regulation S-K and Forms F-10 and 20-F, we considered requiring registrants to include hyperlinks in a subset of these registration statements and reports. For example, we could have limited the hyperlinks requirement to exhibit indexes in those registration statements and reports that typically include lengthy exhibit indexes. Our analysis of a random sample of registration statements and reports filed from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 indicates that exhibit indexes are more frequently included in filings on Forms S-1, S-8, 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K, and 10-D, but are lengthier in Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-4, F-10, 20-F, and 10-K based on the average and median number of exhibits included in the exhibit index. For example, Forms 8-K and 10-Q are the forms most frequently filed but typically list a limited number of exhibits, most of which are included in the filing itself rather than incorporated by reference. Relative to the final rules, the alternative of limiting the scope of the exhibit hyperlinking requirement to fewer form types would lead to cost savings for registrants but also a smaller reduction in search costs for investors and other users.

    Second, instead of requiring registrants to hyperlink each exhibit included in the exhibit index, we considered requiring registrants to hyperlink only exhibits incorporated by reference. Our analysis of the random sample of filings submitted from October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016 indicates that, among the registration statements and reports, Forms 20-F and 10-K typically include a higher number of exhibits incorporated by reference. This alternative would lead to nominal cost savings for registrants but also a smaller reduction in search costs for investors, although search costs related to exhibits filed with the document would be relatively limited.

    Third, we considered requiring registrants to file and update a compilation of exhibits separately from the Form 10-K and other forms. A separate compilation of exhibits could have more prominence and make it easier for investors and other users to access relevant information on EDGAR, as there would be only one compilation for all exhibits regardless of what forms a registrant may file. Requiring a separate compilation, however, would impose an additional burden on registrants to prepare, file and update this disclosure and could make our disclosure regime more complex to the extent that relevant information is spread over multiple filings. Relatedly, several commenters suggested that a centralized exhibit page or a company profile landing page on EDGAR could provide more direct access to the exhibits.89 We are continuing to consider ways to further enhance the presentation and usability of the exhibit index on the EDGAR system.90

    89See letters from CRT, Davis Polk and E&Y.

    90See note 59 above.

    Fourth, we considered excluding ASCII filers from the requirement to hyperlink to each exhibit identified in the exhibit index and permitting them to continue filing in ASCII. Relative to the amendments, this alternative could be beneficial to ASCII filers as they would not incur the additional, although minimal, compliance costs of switching to HTML and hyperlinking their exhibit indexes. However, under this alternative, investors and other users of the information disclosed in ASCII filings would not benefit from reduced search costs. As noted above, the number of registrants affected by this amendment will be minimal, and the phase-in period for non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies should mitigate some of these costs.

    Fifth, given the relevance of organizational documents, such as articles of incorporation and by-laws, to understanding a registrant's corporate structure and operations, we considered requiring registrants to refile electronically on EDGAR their organizational documents previously filed in paper.91 We anticipate that the economic effects of this alternative would be minimal since only a limited number of registrants have not filed their articles of incorporation or by-laws in electronic format.92

    91 Several commenters suggested that it would be particularly beneficial to investors if organizational documents previously filed in paper were available on EDGAR. See, e.g., letters from CII and Reed Smith.

    92See note 57 above.

    V. Paperwork Reduction Act A. Background

    Certain provisions of the final rules contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).93 We published a notice requesting comment on the collection of information requirements in the Proposing Release for the amendments, and we submitted these requirements to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review in accordance with the PRA.94 The titles for the collections of information are:

    93 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    94 44 U.S.C. 3507(d) and 5 CFR 1320.11.

    “Form S-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0065); “Form S-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0073); “Form S-4” (OMB Control No. 3235-0324); “Form S-8” (OMB Control No. 3235-0066); “Form S-11” (OMB Control No. 3235-0067); “Form F-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0258); “Form F-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0256); “Form F-4” (OMB Control No. 3235-0325); “Form F-10” (OMB Control No. 3235-0380); “Form SF-1” (OMB Control No. 3235-0707); “Form SF-3” (OMB Control No. 3235-0690); “Form 10” (OMB Control No. 3235-0064); “Form 20-F” (OMB Control No. 3235-0288); “Form 10-K” (OMB Control No. 3235-0063); “Form 10-Q” (OMB Control No. 3235-0070); “Form 8-K” (OMB Control No. 3235-0060); “Form 10-D” (OMB Control No. 3235-0604); “Regulation S-K” (OMB Control No. 3235-0071); and “Regulation S-T” (OMB Control No. 3235-0424).95

    95 The paperwork burdens from Regulations S-K and S-T are imposed through the forms that are subject to the requirements in these regulations and are reflected in the analysis of those forms. To avoid a PRA inventory reflecting duplicative burdens and for administrative convenience, we assign a one-hour burden to each of Regulation S-K and Regulation S-T.

    The forms, reports and Regulation S-K were adopted under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and set forth the disclosure requirements for registration statements and reports filed by registrants to help investors make informed investment and voting decisions. Regulation S-T was adopted under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act and sets forth the requirements for the electronic submission of documents filed or otherwise submitted to the Commission. The hours and costs associated with preparing and filing the forms and reports constitute reporting and cost burdens imposed by each collection of information.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Compliance with the information collections is mandatory. Responses to the information collections are not kept confidential and there is no mandatory retention period for the information disclosed.

    B. Summary of the Final Amendments

    As described in more detail above, we are adopting amendments to Regulations S-K and S-T and Forms F-10 and 20-F to require registrants that file registration statements and reports subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, or that file on Forms F-10 and 20-F, to submit these registration statements and reports in HTML format and to include a hyperlink from each exhibit identified in the exhibit index of such forms to the exhibit as filed on EDGAR (other than an exhibit filed in XBRL or exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE). The final rules will require registrants to include hyperlinks to all exhibits required by Item 601, Form F-10 or Form 20-F in each amendment to a registration statement or report on these forms.

    C. Summary of Comment Letters and Revisions to Proposals

    In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on our PRA burden hour and cost estimates and the analysis used to derive such estimates. We did not receive any comments that addressed our PRA analysis and burden estimates of the proposed amendments.

    In response to comments on the proposed amendments, we have made one change to the rule proposals that will affect the compliance burdens for issuers. Under the final rules, registrants will be required to include hyperlinks to all exhibits required by Item 601, Form F-10 or Form 20-F in each amendment to a registration statement or report.

    D. Revisions to the Burden and Cost Estimates Burden

    We anticipate that the final amendments will increase the burdens and costs for registrants to prepare and file the affected forms. We believe the burdens associated with hyperlinking exhibits will remain minimal as the registrant, in preparing a filing, will already be preparing the exhibits and exhibit index for such filing and will have readily available all of the information necessary to create the hyperlinks. In addition, we assume that the average burden hours of requiring exhibit hyperlinks will vary based on the number of exhibits that are filed with an affected form. For purposes of the PRA, based on the average and median number of exhibits shown in Table 2 above, we estimate the average burden for a registrant to hyperlink to exhibits would be four hours for Forms 10-K and 20-F; three hours for Forms S-1, S-4, S-11, SF-1, F-1, F-4 and F-10; two hours for Forms S-3, S-8, SF-3, F-3, 10 and 10-Q; and one hour for Forms 10-D and 8-K.

    As a result of the change to the final rules described above, we have increased our burden estimates by one hour for all of the affected forms to reflect the burden for including hyperlinks to all required exhibits in each amendment to a registration statement or report.

    These estimates represent the average burden for all registrants, both large and small. In deriving our estimates, we recognize that the burdens will likely vary among individual registrants based on a number of factors, including the size and complexity of their operations.

    The tables below show the total annual compliance burden, in hours and in costs, of the collection of information resulting from the proposed amendments.96 The burden estimates were calculated by multiplying the estimated number of responses by the estimated average amount of time it would take an issuer to prepare and review the exhibit hyperlinks. The portion of the burden carried by outside professionals is reflected as a cost, while the portion of the burden carried by the issuer internally is reflected in hours. For purposes of the PRA, we estimate that 75% of the burden of preparation for Exchange Act reports is carried by the registrant internally and that 25% of the burden of preparation is carried by outside professionals retained by the registrant at an average cost of $400 per hour.97 For the registration statements on Forms 10, S-1, S-3, S-4, S-11, F-1, F-3, F-4, SF-1 and SF-3, and Exchange Act report Form 20-F, we estimate that 25% of the burden of preparation is carried by the company internally and that 75% of the burden of preparation is carried by outside professionals retained by the company at an average cost of $400 per hour. For the registration statement on Form S-8, we estimate that 50% of the burden of preparation is carried by the company internally and that 50% of the burden of preparation is carried by outside professionals.

    96 For convenience, the estimated hour and cost burdens in the table have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

    97 We recognize that the costs of retaining outside professionals may vary depending on the nature of the professional services, but for purposes of this PRA analysis, we estimate that such costs would be an average of $400 per hour. This estimate is based on consultations with several registrants, law firms and other persons who regularly assist registrants in preparing and filing reports with the Commission.

    Table 4—Incremental Paperwork Burden Under the Final Amendments for Exchange Act Forms Exchange act forms Proposed
  • number of
  • affected
  • responses
  • Incremental
  • burden
  • hours/form
  • Total
  • Incremental
  • burden hours
  • 75%
  • company
  • 25%
  • professional
  • Professional
  • costs
  • (A) (B) (C) = (A) * (B) (D) = (C) * 0.75 (E) = (C) * 0.25 (F) = (E) * $400 Form 10 238 3 714 178 536 $214,200 Form 20-F 98 725 4 3,625 906 2719 1,087,500 Form 10-K 8,137 4 40,685 30,514 10,171 4,068,400 Form 10-Q 22,907 3 68,721 51,541 17,180 6,872,100 Form 8-K 118,387 2 236,774 177,580 59,194 23,677,400 Form 10-D 13,014 2 26,028 19,521 6,507 2,602,800 Total 376,547 38,522,400
    Table 5—Incremental Paperwork Burden Under the Final Amendments for Securities Act Registration Statements Securities act registration
  • statements
  • Proposed
  • number of
  • affected
  • responses
  • Incremental
  • burden
  • hours/form
  • Total
  • incremental
  • burden hours
  • 25%
  • company
  • 75%
  • professional
  • Professional
  • costs
  • (A) (B) (C) = (A) * (B) (D) = (C) * 0.25 (E) = (C) * 0.75 (F) = (E) * $400 Form S-1 901 4 3,604 901 2,703 $1,081,200 Form S-3 1,082 3 3,246 811 2,435 973,800 Form S-4 619 4 2,476 619 1,857 742,800 Form S-8 99 2,200 3 6,600 3,300 3,300 1,320,000 Form S-11 100 4 400 100 300 120,000 Form SF-1 6 4 24 6 18 7,200 Form SF-3 71 3 213 53 160 63,900 Form F-1 63 4 252 63 189 75,600 Form F-3 107 3 321 80 241 96,300 Form F-4 68 4 272 68 204 81,600 Form F-10 40 4 160 40 120 48,000 Total 17,568 4,610,400
    VI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) has been prepared in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.100 This FRFA relates to final amendments that will require registrants to submit registration statements and reports subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, or Forms 20-F and F-10 in HTML format, to include a hyperlink to each exhibit listed in the exhibit index of such registration statement or report.

    98 The calculations for Form 20-F reflect an allocation of a 25% internal burden carried by the company and a 75% external burden carried by outside professionals.

    99 The calculation for Form S-8 reflects an allocation of a 50% internal burden carried by the company and a 50% external burden carried by outside professionals.

    100 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    A. Need for the Amendments

    The main purpose of the amendments is to improve investors' access to information—in particular, the ability of investors and other users to retrieve and access exhibits that are filed on EDGAR.

    B. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments

    In the Proposing Release, we requested comment on any aspect of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”), including the number of small entities that would be affected by the proposed rules, the nature of the impact, how to quantify the number of small entities that would be affected, and how to quantify the impact of the proposed amendments. We did not receive comments specifically addressing the IRFA. Several commenters, however, addressed aspects of the proposed amendments that could potentially affect small entities. In particular, two commenters expressed concerned that the proposed HTML formatting requirement would place a disproportionate burden on smaller reporting companies and non-accelerated filers.101 These commenters advocated providing smaller reporting companies and non-accelerated filers with one additional year beyond the compliance date for accelerated filers to comply with the amendments.

    101See letters from CGCIV and Chamber of Commerce.

    C. Small Entities Subject to the Final Rules

    The final rules will affect some companies that are small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act defines “small entity” to mean “small business,” “small organization,” or “small governmental jurisdiction.” 102 For purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, under our rules, an issuer, other than an investment company, is a “small business” or “small organization” if it had total assets of $5 million or less on the last day of its most recent fiscal year and is engaged or proposing to engage in an offering of securities that does not exceed $5 million.103 An investment company, including a business development company,104 is considered to be a “small business” if it, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.105 We estimate that there are 837 issuers, other than investment companies, that will be subject to the final rules that may be considered small entities.106 In addition, we estimate that there are 34 investment companies that will be subject to the final rules that may be considered small entities.

    102 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

    103See Securities Act Rule 157 [17 CFR 230.157] and Exchange Act Rule 0-10(a) [17 CFR 240.0-10(a)].

    104 Business development companies are a category of closed-end investment company that are not registered under the Investment Company Act [15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(48) and 80a-53-64].

    105See Exchange Act Rule 0-10(a).

    106 This estimate is based on a review of XBRL data, where available, submitted with Form 10-K and Form 20-F filings with fiscal periods ending between January 31, 2015 and January 31, 2016.

    D. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The final rules will impose new compliance requirements for small entities. The final rules will require all registrants (including small entities) that file registration statements and reports that are subject to the exhibit requirements under Item 601 of Regulation S-K, or that file on Forms F-10 or 20-F, to file these forms in HTML format and to hyperlink to each exhibit (other than an exhibit filed in XBRL or exhibits filed with Form ABS-EE) identified in the exhibit index contained in the form. The final rules will also require registrants to include hyperlinks to all of the exhibits required by Item 601, Form 10-F or Form 20-F in each amendment to a registration statement or report.

    E. Agency Action To Minimize Effect on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act directs us to consider alternatives that would accomplish our stated objectives, while minimizing any significant adverse impact on small entities. In connection with the final rules, we considered the following alternatives:

    • Establishing different compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities;

    • Clarifying, consolidating or simplifying compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for small entities;

    • Using performance rather than design standards; and

    • Exempting small entities from all or part of the requirements.

    We believe the amendments to require the inclusion of hyperlinks in the exhibit index will impose only minimal burdens on registrants. Similarly, we believe the requirement to submit registration statements and reports in HTML format should not impose significant costs. During calendar year 2015, approximately 0.74% of the forms that would be affected by the proposed amendments were filed in ASCII, and we believe that the HTML format has largely replaced the ASCII format for these form types. The limited use of ASCII indicates that the final amendments will affect only a limited number of registrants on a one-time basis. While the registrants that file forms in ASCII that would be affected by the proposal to require HTML are primarily small entities, we expect that the burden to switch from ASCII to HTML will not be significant because the software tools to file in HTML format are now widely used and available at a minimal cost. Accordingly, we do not believe that it is necessary to exempt small entities from the proposed amendments. For similar reasons, we have not sought to clarify, consolidate or simplify the proposed amendments' requirements for small entities.

    Nevertheless, to minimize the initial compliance burden on small entities and give them additional time to prepare for compliance with the final rules, we are adopting a phase-in period for non-accelerated filers and smaller reporting companies that submit filings in ASCII. These registrants will have one year after the effective date of the final rules to begin to comply with the rules. During the phase-in period, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company that submits filings in ASCII may continue to file registration statements or reports in ASCII and will not need to include hyperlinks to the exhibits listed in the exhibit indexes of its filings.

    The final rules use design rather than performance standards in order to promote uniform filing requirements for all registrants.

    VII. Statutory Authority

    The amendments contained in this release are being adopted under the authority set forth in Sections 6, 7, 8, 10 and 19(a) of the Securities Act, and Sections 3, 12, 13, 15(d), 23(a) and 35A of the Exchange Act.

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Parts 229, 232, 239 and 249

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Securities.

    Text of the Final Amendments

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Commission is amending title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 229—STANDARD INSTRUCTIONS FOR FILING FORMS UNDER SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1975—REGULATION S-K 1. The authority citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77e, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77k, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77aa(25), 77aa(26), 77ddd, 77eee, 77ggg, 77hhh, 77iii, 77jjj, 77nnn, 77sss, 78c, 78i, 78j, 78j-3, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78n-1, 78o, 78u-5, 78w, 78ll, 78 mm, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-20, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-31(c), 80a-37, 80a-38(a), 80a-39, 80b-11 and 7201 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b) Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3) Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309; and Sec. 84001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312.

    2. Amend § 229.601 by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:
    § 229.601 (Item 601) Exhibits.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Each registration statement or report shall contain an exhibit index, which must appear before the required signatures in the registration statement or report. For convenient reference, each exhibit shall be listed in the exhibit index according to the number assigned to it in the exhibit table. If an exhibit is incorporated by reference, this must be noted in the exhibit index. Each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than an exhibit filed in eXtensible Business Reporting Language or an exhibit that is filed with Form ABS-EE) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the registration statement or report or, if the exhibit is incorporated by reference, an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR. If a registration statement or report is amended, each amendment must include hyperlinks to the exhibits required with the amendment. For a description of each of the exhibits included in the exhibit table, see paragraph (b) of this section.

    PART 232—REGULATION S-T—GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ELECTRONIC FILINGS 3. The authority citation for part 232 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s(a), 77z-3, 77sss(a), 78c(b), 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78w(a), 78ll, 80a-6(c), 80a-8, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, 7201 et seq.; and 18 U.S.C. 1350, unless otherwise noted.

    4. Amend § 232.11 by removing the definition “Hypertext links or hyperlinks” and adding the definition “Hyperlinks” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 232.11 Definition of terms used in part 232.

    Hyperlinks. The term hyperlinks means the representation of an Internet address in a form that an Internet browser application can recognize as an Internet address.

    5. Amend § 232.102 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
    § 232.102 Exhibits.

    (a) Exhibits to an electronic filing that have not previously been filed with the Commission shall be filed in electronic format, absent a hardship exemption. Previously filed exhibits, whether in paper or electronic format, may be incorporated by reference into an electronic filing to the extent permitted by § 229.10(d) of this chapter, Rule 411 under the Securities Act (§ 230.411 of this chapter), Rule 12b-23 or 12b-32 under the Exchange Act (§ 240.12b-23 or § 240.12b-32 of this chapter), Rules 0-4, 8b-23, and 8b-32 under the Investment Company Act (§§ 270.0-4, 270.8b-23 and 270.8b-32 of this chapter) and Rule 303 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.303). An electronic filer may, at its option, restate in electronic format any exhibit incorporated by reference that originally was filed in paper format.

    Note to paragraph (a):

    Exhibits to a Commission schedule filed pursuant to Section 13 or 14(d) of the Exchange Act may be filed in paper under cover of Form SE where such exhibits previously were filed in paper (prior to a registrant's becoming subject to mandated electronic filing or pursuant to a hardship exemption) and are required to be refiled pursuant to the schedule's general instructions. See Rule 311(b) of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.311(b)).

    (d) Each electronic filing requiring exhibits must include an exhibit index which must appear before the required signatures in the document. The index must list each exhibit filed, whether filed electronically or in paper. For electronic filings on Form F-10 (§ 239.40 of this chapter), Form 20-F (§ 249.220f of this chapter), or filings subject to Item 601 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.601 of this chapter), each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than an exhibit filed in eXtensible Business Reporting Language or an exhibit that is filed with Form ABS-EE (§ 249.1401 of this chapter)) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the document or, if the exhibit is incorporated by reference, an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR. Whenever a filer files an exhibit in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or § 232.202) or pursuant to § 232.311, the filer must place the letter “P” next to the listed exhibit in the exhibit index of the electronic filing to reflect the fact that the filer filed the exhibit in paper. In addition, if the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to § 232.311, the filer must place the designation “Rule 311” next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index. If the exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption, the filer must place the letters “TH” or “CH,” respectively, next to the letter “P” in the exhibit index. Whenever an electronic confirming copy of an exhibit is filed pursuant to a hardship exemption (§ 232.201 or § 232.202(d)), the exhibit index should specify where the confirming electronic copy can be located; in addition, the designation “CE” (confirming electronic) should be placed next to the listed exhibit in the exhibit index.

    6. Amend § 232.105 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (b) and (c) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 232.105 Use of HTML and hyperlinks.

    (b) Electronic filers may not include in any HTML document hyperlinks to sites, locations, or documents outside the HTML document, except links to officially filed documents within the current submission and to documents previously filed electronically and located in the EDGAR database on the Commission's public Web site (www.sec.gov). Electronic filers also may include within an HTML document links to different sections within that single HTML document.

    (c) If a filer includes an external hyperlink within a filed document, the information contained in the linked material will not be considered part of the document for determining compliance with reporting obligations, but the inclusion of the link will cause the filer to be subject to the civil liability and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws with reference to the information contained in the linked material.

    (d) Electronic filers submitting Form F-10 (§ 239.40 of this chapter), Form 20-F (§ 249.220f of this chapter), or a registration statement or report subject to Item 601 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.601 of this chapter), must submit such registration statement or report in HTML and each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than an exhibit filed in eXtensible Business Reporting Language or an exhibit filed with Form ABS-EE (§ 249.1401 of this chapter)) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the registration statement or report or, if the exhibit is incorporated by reference, an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR, unless such exhibit is filed in paper pursuant to a temporary or continuing hardship exemption under Rules 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.201 or § 232.202) or pursuant to Rule 311 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.311).

    Instructions to paragraph (d): (1) No hyperlink is required for any exhibit incorporated by reference that has not been filed with the Commission in electronic format.

    (2) An electronic filer must correct an inaccurate or nonfunctioning link or hyperlink to an exhibit, in the case of a registration statement that is not yet effective, by filing an amendment to the registration statement containing the inaccurate or nonfunctioning link or hyperlink; or, in the case of a registration statement that has become effective or an Exchange Act report, an electronic filer must correct the inaccurate or nonfunctioning link or hyperlink in the next Exchange Act periodic report that requires, or includes, an exhibit pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.601 of this chapter) or, in the case of a foreign private issuer (as defined in § 229.405 of this chapter), Form 20-F (§ 249.220f of this chapter) or Form F-10 (§ 239.40 of this chapter). Alternatively, an electronic filer may correct an inaccurate or nonfunctioning link or hyperlink in a registration statement that has become effective by filing a post-effective amendment to the registration statement.

    PART 239—FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 7. The authority citation for part 239 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 77c, 77f, 77g, 77h, 77j, 77s, 77z-2, 77z-3, 77sss, 78c, 78l, 78m, 78n, 78o(d), 78o-7 note, 78u-5, 78w(a), 78ll, 78mm, 80a-2(a), 80a-3, 80a-8, 80a-9, 80a-10, 80a-13, 80a-24, 80a-26, 80a-29, 80a-30, 80a-37, and Sec. 71003 and Sec. 84001, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, unless otherwise noted.

    8. Amend Form F-10 (referenced in § 239.40) by revising paragraph D of General Instruction II to read as follows: Note:

    The text of Form F-10 does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    United States Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC 20549 Form F-10 Registration Statement Under the Securities Act of 1933 General Instructions II. Application of General Rules and Regulations

    D. A registrant must file the registration statement in electronic format via the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system in accordance with the EDGAR rules set forth in Regulation S-T (17 CFR part 232). For assistance with technical questions about EDGAR or to request an access code, call the EDGAR Filer Support Office at (202) 551-8900. For assistance with the EDGAR rules, call the Office of Information Technology in the Division of Corporation Finance at (202) 551-3600.

    Include an exhibit index in the registration statement, which must appear before the required signatures in the document. The exhibit index must list each exhibit according to the letter or number assigned to it. If an exhibit is incorporated by reference, this must be noted in the exhibit index. Each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than an exhibit filed in eXtensible Business Reporting Language) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the registration statement or, if the exhibit is incorporated by reference an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR. If the registration statement is amended, each amendment must include active hyperlinks to the exhibits required with the amendment. For paper filings, the pages of the manually signed original registration statement should be numbered in sequence, and the exhibit index should give the page number in the sequential numbering system where each exhibit can be found.

    If filing the registration statement in paper under a hardship exemption in Rule 201 or 202 of Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.201 or 232.202), or as otherwise permitted, a registrant must file with the Commission at its principal office five copies of the complete registration statement and any amendments, including exhibits and all other documents filed as a part of the registration statement or amendment. The registrant must bind, staple or otherwise compile each copy in one or more parts without stiff covers. The registrant must further bind the registration statement or amendment on the side or stitching margin in a manner that leaves the reading matter legible. The registrant must provide three additional copies of the registration statement or amendment without exhibits to the Commission.

    PART 249—FORMS, SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 9. The authority citation for part 249 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. and 7201 et seq.; 12 U.S.C. 5461 et seq.; 18 U.S.C. 1350; Sec. 953(b) Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1904; Sec. 102(a)(3) Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 309 (2012), Sec. 107 Pub. L. 112-106, 126 Stat. 313 (2012), and Sec. 72001 Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (2015), unless otherwise noted.

    10. Amend Form 20-F (referenced in § 249.220f) by revising the fourth paragraph of the introductory text under “Instructions as to Exhibits” to read as follows: Note:

    The text of Form 20-F does not, and this amendment will not, appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Form 20-F Part III Item 19. Exhibits Instructions as to Exhibits

    Include an exhibit index in each registration statement or report you file, which must appear before the required signatures in the document. The exhibit index must list each exhibit according to the number assigned to it below. If an exhibit is incorporated by reference, this must be noted in the exhibit index. Each exhibit identified in the exhibit index (other than an exhibit filed in eXtensible Business Reporting Language) must include an active link to an exhibit that is filed with the registration statement or report or, if the exhibit is incorporated by reference an active hyperlink to the exhibit separately filed on EDGAR. If a registration statement or report is amended, each amendment must include active hyperlinks to the exhibits required with the amendment. For paper filings, the pages of the manually signed original registration statement should be numbered in sequence, and the exhibit index should give the page number in the sequential numbering system where each exhibit can be found.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: March 1, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-04365 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 1, 101, 112, 115, 117, 118, 507, and 800 [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-0011] Presiding Officer for an Appeal and Informal Hearing; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is making revisions to Chapter I of its regulations. These revisions are necessary to reflect changes to the Agency's organizational structure, including the dissolution of the Regional Food and Drug Director position. The revisions replace references to the Regional Food and Drug Director, who is designated to preside over administrative appeals and at informal hearings on appeal, with references to Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Directors. The rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective March 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Peter Fox, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-1857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs has dissolved the Regional Food and Drug Director position. Certain duties related to administrative appeals and informal hearings formerly held by Regional Food and Drug Directors will transfer to Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Directors. The revisions made by this rule pertain solely to the designation of FDA officials and do not alter any substantive standards.

    II. Description of the Technical Amendments

    The regulations specified in this rule have been revised to replace all references to the “Regional Food and Drug Director” with “Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director,” to reflect the change in designation. In addition, the regulations have been revised to authorize other FDA officials senior to an FDA District Director to perform duties related to administrative appeals and informal hearings. Finally, we have made minor conforming amendments and grammatical changes as necessary to accommodate the new language.

    We are making these technical amendments to revise descriptions of the FDA officials designated to preside over administrative appeals and at informal hearings on appeal. The rule does not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. The amendments are editorial in nature and should not be construed as modifying any substantive standards or requirements.

    III. Notice and Public Comment

    Publication of this document constitutes final action of these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts “rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” from proposed rulemaking (i.e., notice and comment rulemaking). 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). Rules are also exempt when an agency finds “good cause” that notice and comment rulemaking procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

    FDA has determined that this rulemaking meets the notice and comment exemption requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (b)(3)(B). FDA's revisions make technical or non-substantive changes that pertain solely to the designation of FDA officials, and do not alter any substantive standard. FDA does not believe public comment is necessary for these minor revisions.

    The APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication as “provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule” (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). A delayed effective date is unnecessary in this case because the amendments do not impose any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. As a result, affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes effect. Therefore, FDA finds good cause for the amendments to become effective on the date of publication of this action.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 1

    Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 101

    Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 112

    Dietary foods, Food grades and standards, Foods, Fruits, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Vegetables.

    21 CFR Part 115

    Eggs and egg products, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 117

    Food packaging, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 118

    Eggs and egg products, Food grades and standards, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 507

    Animal foods, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 800

    Administrative practice and procedure, Medical devices, Ophthalmic goods and services, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 1, 101, 112, 115, 117, 118, 507, and 800 are amended as follows:

    PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1333, 1453, 1454, 1455, 4402; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 342, 343, 350c, 350d, 350e, 350j, 350k, 352, 355, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 360ccc-2, 362, 371, 373, 374, 379j-31, 381, 382, 384a, 384b, 384d, 387, 387a, 387c, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262, 264, 271; Pub. L. 107-188, 116 Stat. 594, 668-69; Pub. L. 111-353, 124 Stat. 3885, 3889.

    2. Amend § 1.403 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 1.403 What requirements apply to an informal hearing?

    (f) Section 1.404, rather than § 16.42(a) of this chapter, describes the FDA employees, i.e., Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Directors or other officials senior to a District Director, who preside at hearings under this subpart;

    3. Revise § 1.404 to read as follows:
    § 1.404 Who serves as the presiding officer for an appeal and for an informal hearing?

    The presiding officer for an appeal, and for an informal hearing, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director.

    4. Amend § 1.980 by revising paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and (g)(4) to read as follows:
    § 1.980 Administrative detention of drugs.

    (g) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Paragraph (g)(4) of this section, rather than § 16.42(a) of this chapter, describes the FDA employees, i.e., Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Directors or other FDA officials senior to an FDA District Director, who preside at hearings under this section.

    (4) The presiding officer of a regulatory hearing on an appeal of a detention order, who also must decide the appeal, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director who is permitted by § 16.42(a) of this chapter to preside over the hearing.

    PART 101—FOOD LABELING 5. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    6. Amend § 101.17 by revising paragraphs (h)(7)(ii) introductory text, (h)(7)(ii)(B), (h)(7)(ii)(C) introductory text, (h)(7)(ii)(C)(1), (h)(7)(ii)(C)(4), (h)(7)(ii)(C)(5), (h)(7)(ii)(C)(6), (h)(7)(ii)(D), (h)(7)(ii)(E), and (h)(7)(ii)(F) to read as follows:
    § 101.17 Food labeling warning, notice, and safe handling statements.

    (h) * * *

    (7) * * *

    (ii) The person on whom the order for relabeling, diversion, or destruction is served may either comply with the order or appeal the order to an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director.

    (B) Summary decision. A request for a hearing may be denied, in whole or in part and at any time after a request for a hearing has been submitted, if the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director determines that no genuine and substantial issue of fact has been raised by the material submitted in connection with the hearing or from matters officially noticed. If the presiding FDA official determines that a hearing is not justified, written notice of the determination will be given to the parties explaining the reason for denial.

    (C) Informal hearing. Appearance by any appellant at the hearing may be by mail or in person, with or without counsel. The informal hearing shall be conducted by an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director, and a written summary of the proceedings shall be prepared by the presiding FDA official.

    (1) The presiding FDA official may direct that the hearing be conducted in any suitable manner permitted by law and this section. The presiding FDA official has the power to take such actions and make such rulings as are necessary or appropriate to maintain order and to conduct an informal, fair, expeditious, and impartial hearing, and to enforce the requirements concerning the conduct of hearings.

    (4) The party requesting the hearing may have the hearing transcribed, at the party's expense, in which case a copy of the transcript is to be furnished to FDA. Any transcript of the hearing will be included with the presiding FDA official's report of the hearing.

    (5) The presiding FDA official shall prepare a written report of the hearing. All written material presented at the hearing will be attached to the report. Whenever time permits, the presiding FDA official may give the parties the opportunity to review and comment on the report of the hearing.

    (6) The presiding FDA official shall include as part of the report of the hearing a finding on the credibility of witnesses (other than expert witnesses) whenever credibility is a material issue, and shall include a recommended decision, with a statement of reasons.

    (D) Written appeal. If the appellant appeals the detention order but does not request a hearing, the presiding FDA official shall render a decision on the appeal affirming or revoking the detention within 5-working days after the receipt of the appeal.

    (E) Presiding FDA official's decision. If, based on the evidence presented at the hearing or by the appellant in a written appeal, the presiding FDA official finds that the shell eggs were held in violation of this section, he shall affirm the order that they be relabeled, diverted under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA for processing under the EPIA, or destroyed by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA; otherwise, the presiding FDA official shall issue a written notice that the prior order is withdrawn. If the presiding FDA official affirms the order, he shall order that the relabeling, diversion, or destruction be accomplished within 10-working days from the date of the issuance of his decision. The presiding FDA official's decision shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the decision. The decision of the presiding FDA official shall constitute final agency action, reviewable in the courts.

    (F) No appeal. If there is no appeal of the order and the person in possession of the shell eggs that are subject to the order fails to relabel, divert, or destroy them within 10-working days, or if the demand is affirmed by the presiding FDA official after an appeal and the person in possession of such eggs fails to relabel, divert, or destroy them within 10-working days, the FDA district office, or, if applicable, the State or local agency may designate an officer or employee to divert or destroy such eggs. It shall be unlawful to prevent or to attempt to prevent such diversion or destruction of the shell eggs by the designated officer or employee.

    PART 112—STANDARDS FOR THE GROWING, HARVESTING, PACKING, AND HOLDING OF PRODUCE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 7. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 350h, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    8. Revise § 112.209 to read as follows:
    § 112.209  Who is the presiding officer for an appeal and for an informal hearing?

    The presiding officer for an appeal, and for an informal hearing, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director.

    PART 115—SHELL EGGS 9. The authority citation for part 115 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    10. Amend § 115.50 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) introductory text, (e)(2)(ii), (e)(2)(iii) introductory text, (e)(2)(iii)(A), (e)(2)(iii)(D), (e)(2)(iii)(E), (e)(2)(iii)(F), (e)(2)(iv), (e)(2)(v), and (e)(2)(vi) to read as follows:
    § 115.50  Refrigeration of shell eggs held for retail distribution.

    (e) * * *

    (2) The person on whom the order for diversion or destruction is served may either comply with the order or appeal the order to an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director in accordance with the following procedures:

    (ii) Summary decision. A request for a hearing may be denied, in whole or in part and at any time after a request for a hearing has been submitted, if the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director determines that no genuine and substantial issue of fact has been raised by the material submitted in connection with the hearing or from matters officially noticed. If the presiding FDA official determines that a hearing is not justified, written notice of the determination will be given to the parties explaining the reason for denial.

    (iii) Informal hearing. Appearance by any appellant at the hearing may be by mail or in person, with or without counsel. The informal hearing shall be conducted by the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director, and a written summary of the proceedings shall be prepared by the presiding FDA official.

    (A) The presiding FDA official may direct that the hearing be conducted in any suitable manner permitted by law and this section. The presiding FDA official has the power to take such actions and make such rulings as are necessary or appropriate to maintain order and to conduct an informal, fair, expeditious, and impartial hearing, and to enforce the requirements concerning the conduct of hearings.

    (D) The party requesting the hearing may have the hearing transcribed, at the party's expense, in which case a copy of the transcript is to be furnished to FDA. Any transcript of the hearing will be included with the presiding FDA official's report of the hearing.

    (E) The presiding FDA official shall prepare a written report of the hearing. All written material presented at the hearing will be attached to the report. Whenever time permits, the presiding FDA official may give the parties the opportunity to review and comment on the report of the hearing.

    (F) The presiding FDA official shall include as part of the report of the hearing a finding on the credibility of witnesses (other than expert witnesses) whenever credibility is a material issue, and shall include a recommended decision, with a statement of reasons.

    (iv) Written appeal. If the appellant appeals the detention order but does not request a hearing, the presiding FDA official shall render a decision on the appeal affirming or revoking the detention within 5-working days after the receipt of the appeal.

    (v) Presiding FDA official's decision. If, based on the evidence presented at the hearing or by the appellant in a written appeal, the presiding FDA official finds that the shell eggs were held in violation of this section, he shall affirm the order that they be diverted, under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA for processing under the EPIA or destroyed by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA; otherwise, the presiding FDA official shall issue a written notice that the prior order is withdrawn. If the presiding FDA official affirms the order, he shall order that the diversion or destruction be accomplished within 10-working days from the date of the issuance of his decision. The presiding FDA official's decision shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the decision. The decision of the presiding FDA official shall constitute final agency action, reviewable in the courts.

    (vi) No appeal. If there is no appeal of the order and the person in possession of the shell eggs that are subject to the order fails to divert or destroy them within 10-working days, or if the demand is affirmed by the presiding FDA official after an appeal and the person in possession of such eggs fails to divert or destroy them within 10-working days, FDA's district office or appropriate State or local agency may designate an officer or employee to divert or destroy such eggs. It shall be unlawful to prevent or to attempt to prevent such diversion or destruction of the shell eggs by the designated officer or employee.

    PART 117—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, HAZARD ANALYSIS, AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE CONTROLS FOR HUMAN FOOD 11. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 331, 342, 343, 350d note, 350g, 350g note, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    12. Revise § 117.274 to read as follows:
    § 117.274 Presiding officer for an appeal and for an informal hearing.

    The presiding officer for an appeal, and for an informal hearing, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director.

    PART 118—PRODUCTION, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION OF SHELL EGGS

    13. The authority citation for part 118 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331- 334, 342, 371, 381, 393, 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    14. Amend § 118.12 by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i) introductory text, (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii) introductory text, (a)(2)(iii)(A), (a)(2)(iii)(D), (a)(2)(iii)(E), (a)(2)(iii)(F), (a)(2)(v), and (a)(2)(vi) to read as follows:
    § 118.12 Enforcement and compliance.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Order for diversion or destruction under the PHS Act. Any district office of FDA or any State or locality acting under paragraph (c) of this section, upon finding shell eggs that have been produced or held in violation of this regulation, may serve a written order upon the person in whose possession the eggs are found requiring that the eggs be diverted, under the supervision of an officer or employee of the issuing entity, for processing in accordance with the EPIA (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.) or by a treatment that achieves at least a 5-long destruction of SE or destroyed by or under the supervision of the issuing entity, within 10-working days from the date of receipt of the order, unless under paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section, a hearing is held, in which case the eggs must be diverted or destroyed consistent with the decision of the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director under paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section. The order must include the following information:

    (2) The person on whom the order for diversion or destruction is served may either comply with the order or appeal the order to an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director in accordance with the following procedures:

    (ii) Summary decision. A request for a hearing may be denied, in whole or in part and at any time after a request for a hearing has been submitted, if the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director determines that no genuine and substantial issue of fact has been raised by the material submitted in connection with the hearing or from matters officially noticed. If the presiding FDA official determines that a hearing is not justified, written notice of the determination will be given to the parties explaining the reason for denial.

    (iii) Informal hearing. Appearance by any appellant at the hearing may be by mail or in person, with or without counsel. The informal hearing must be conducted by the Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director, and a written summary of the proceedings must be prepared by the presiding FDA official.

    (A) The presiding FDA official may direct that the hearing be conducted in any suitable manner permitted by law and by this section. The presiding FDA official has the power to take such actions and make such rulings as are necessary or appropriate to maintain order and to conduct an informal, fair, expeditious, and impartial hearing, and to enforce the requirements concerning the conduct of hearings.

    (D) The party requesting the hearing may have the hearing transcribed, at the party's expense, in which case a copy of the transcript is to be furnished to FDA. Any transcript of the hearing will be included with the presiding FDA official's report of the hearing.

    (E) The presiding FDA official must prepare a written report of the hearing. All written material presented at the hearing will be attached to the report. Whenever time permits, the presiding FDA official may give the parties the opportunity to review and comment on the report of the hearing.

    (F) The presiding FDA official must include as part of the report of the hearing a finding on the credibility of witnesses (other than expert witnesses) whenever credibility is a material issue, and must include a recommended decision, with a statement of reasons.

    (iv) Written appeal. If the appellant appeals the detention order but does not request a hearing, the presiding FDA official must render a decision on the appeal affirming or revoking the detention order within 5-working days after the receipt of the appeal.

    (v) Presiding FDA official's decision. If, based on the evidence presented at the hearing or by the appellant in a written appeal, the presiding FDA official finds that the shell eggs were produced or held in violation of this section, he must affirm the order that they be diverted, under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA for processing under the EPIA or by a treatment that achieves at least a 5-log destruction of SE or destroyed by or under the supervision of an officer or employee of FDA; otherwise, the presiding FDA official must issue a written notice that the prior order is withdrawn. If the presiding FDA official affirms the order, he must order that the diversion or destruction be accomplished within 10-working days from the date of the issuance of his decision. The presiding FDA official's decision must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the decision. The decision of the presiding FDA official constitutes final agency action, subject to judicial review.

    (vi) No appeal. If there is no appeal of the order and the person in possession of the shell eggs that are subject to the order fails to divert or destroy them within 10-working days, or if the demand is affirmed by the presiding FDA official after an appeal and the person in possession of such eggs fails to divert or destroy them within 10-working days, FDA's district office or, if applicable, the State or local representative may designate an officer or employee to divert or destroy such eggs. It shall be unlawful to prevent or to attempt to prevent such diversion or destruction of the shell eggs by the designated officer or employee.

    PART 507—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, HAZARD ANALYSIS, AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE CONTROLS FOR FOOD FOR ANIMALS 15. The authority citation for part 507 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 331, 342, 343, 350d note, 350g, 350g note, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    16. Revise § 507.75 to read as follows:
    § 507.75 Residing officer for an appeal and for an informal hearing.

    The presiding officer for an appeal, and for an informal hearing, must be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director.

    PART 800—GENERAL 17. The authority citation for part 800 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 334, 351, 352, 355, 360e, 360i, 360k, 361, 362, 371.

    18. Amend § 800.55 by revising paragraphs (g)(3)(iv) and (g)(4) to read as follows:
    § 800.55 Administrative detention.

    (g) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iv) Paragraph (g)(4) of this section, rather than § 16.42(a) of this chapter, describes the FDA employees, i.e., Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Directors or other FDA officials senior to an FDA District Director, who preside at hearings under this section.

    (4) The presiding officer of a regulatory hearing on an appeal of a detention order, who also shall decide the appeal, shall be an Office of Regulatory Affairs Program Director or another FDA official senior to an FDA District Director who is permitted by § 16.42(a) of this chapter to preside over the hearing.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05350 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [CIS No. 2585-16] RIN 1615-AC10 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Wage and Hour Division 29 CFR Part 503 RIN 1235-AA16 Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labor Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for the H-2B Temporary Non-agricultural Worker Program AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security; Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) (collectively, “the Departments”) are jointly issuing this final rule to adjust for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced in connection with the employment of temporary nonimmigrant workers under the H-2B program, pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act). The Inflation Adjustment Act provides that agencies shall adjust civil monetary penalties notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, the Inflation Adjustment Act provides a cost-of-living formula for adjustment of the civil penalties. Accordingly, this final rule sets forth the Departments' 2017 annual adjustments for inflation to the H-2B civil monetary penalties, effective March 17, 2017.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective March 17, 2017. As provided by the Inflation Adjustment Act, the increased penalty levels apply to any penalties assessed after March 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Peters, Program Analyst, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-2312, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this final rule may be obtained in alternative formats (large print, Braille, audio tape or disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-5959 (this is not a toll-free number). TTY/TDD callers may dial toll-free 1-877-889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Regulatory Information

    The Inflation Adjustment Act required agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. Agencies are required to publish an annual inflation adjustment no later than January 15, 2017, and by January 15 of each subsequent year.

    On July 1, 2016, the Departments established the initial catch-up adjustment for civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced in connection with the employment of temporary nonimmigrant workers under the H-2B program. See 81 FR 42983 (IFR).1 This final rule reflects that the Departments did not receive any public comments on the jointly-issued IFR and so did not make any changes to the civil monetary penalty amounts established in the IFR based on comments received. For that reason, this rule is being issued jointly by DOL and DHS. As explained in the IFR, DOL will make future adjustments to the H-2B civil monetary penalties consistent with DOL's delegated authority under 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(14), Immigration and Nationality Act section 214(c)(14), and the Inflation Adjustment Act. See 81 FR 42985 n.2. DOL will make the first such adjustment in 2018.

    1 The Departments incorporate by reference the preamble to the July 2016 IFR. See 81 FR 42983-42986.

    Agencies are required to calculate the annual adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Annual inflation adjustments are based on the percent change between the October CPI-U preceding the date of the adjustment, and the prior year's October CPI-U; in this case, the percent change between the October 2016 CPI-U and the October 2015 CPI-U. The cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2016, not seasonally adjusted, is 1.01636.2 In order to complete the 2017 annual adjustment, the Departments multiplied the most recent H-2B maximum civil monetary penalty amounts by the multiplier, 1.01636, and rounded to the nearest dollar.

    2 OMB provided the year-over-year multiplier, rounded to 5 decimal points. See M-17-11, Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Dec 16, 2016).

    As provided by the Inflation Adjustment Act, the increased penalty levels apply to any penalties assessed after the effective date of this rule. Accordingly, for penalties assessed after March 17, 2017, whose associated violations occurred after November 2, 2015, the higher penalty amounts outlined in this rule will apply. The chart below demonstrates the penalty amounts that apply:

    Violations occurring Penalty assessed Which penalty level applies On or before November 2, 2015 On or before August 1, 2016 Pre-August 1, 2016 levels. On or before November 2, 2015 After August 1, 2016 Pre-August 1, 2016 levels. After November 2, 2015 After August 1, 2016, but on or before March 17, 2017 August 1, 2016 levels. After November 2, 2015 After March 17, 2017 March 17, 2017 levels. II. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the Departments consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The Departments have determined that this final rule does not require any collection of information.

    III. Administrative Procedure Act

    The Inflation Adjustment Act provides that agencies shall annually adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation notwithstanding Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Additionally, the Inflation Adjustment Act provides a nondiscretionary clear formula for annual adjustment of the civil monetary penalties. For these reasons, the requirements in sections 553(b), (c), and (d) of the APA, relating to notice and comment and requiring that a rule be effective at least 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, are inapplicable.

    IV. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    Executive Order 12866 requires that regulatory agencies assess both the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions. Under the Executive Order, a “significant regulatory action” is one meeting any of a number of specified conditions, including the following: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; creating a serious inconsistency or interfering with an action of another agency; materially altering the budgetary impact of entitlements or the rights of entitlement recipients, or raising novel legal or policy issues.

    The Departments have determined that this final rule is not a “significant” regulatory action and a cost-benefit and economic analysis is not required. This regulation merely adjusts civil monetary penalties in accordance with inflation as required by the Inflation Adjustment Act, and has no impact on disclosure or compliance costs. The benefit provided by the inflationary adjustment to the maximum civil monetary penalties is that of maintaining the incentive for the regulated community to comply with the laws enforced by the Departments, and not allowing the incentive to be diminished by inflation. To the extent this Final Rule increases civil monetary penalties, it would result in an increase in transfers from persons or entities assessed a civil monetary penalty to the government.

    Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility to minimize burden.

    By mandating inflation adjustments consistent with a non-discretionary, clear formula, Congress has already determined that any possible increase in costs is justified by the overall benefits of such adjustments. This final rule makes only the statutory changes outlined herein; thus there are no alternatives or further analysis required by E.O. 13563.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (RFA), imposes certain requirements on Federal agency rules that are subject to the notice and comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This final rule is exempt from the requirements of the APA because the Inflation Adjustment Act directed the Departments to issue the annual adjustments without regard to Section 553 of the APA. Therefore, the requirements of the RFA applicable to final rules, 5 U.S.C. 604, do not apply to this final rule. Accordingly, the Departments are not required to either certify that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis.

    VI. Environmental Impact Assessment

    This action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This action is therefore categorically excluded from further review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4375.

    List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 503

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Housing, Immigration, Labor, Penalties, Transportation, Wages.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the preamble, 29 CFR part 503 is amended as follows:

    Title 29—Labor PART 503—ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS FOR TEMPORARY NONIMMIGRANT NON-AGRICULTURAL WORKERS DESCRIBED IN THE IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT 1. The authority citation for part 503 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b); 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 CFR 214.2(h); 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at § 701.

    § 503.23 [Amended]
    2. In the table below for § 503.23, for each paragraph indicated in the left column, remove the dollar amount indicated in the middle column from wherever it appears in the paragraph, and add in its place the dollar amount indicated in the right column: Paragraph Remove Add (b) $11,940 $12,135 (c) 11,940 12,135 (d) 11,940 12,135 John F. Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security. Edward C. Hugler, Acting Secretary of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05178 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-27-P; 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0132] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone—St. Patrick's Day Fireworks AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone on the Manitowoc River in Manitowoc, WI for the St. Patrick's Day Fireworks on March 17, 2017. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life on navigable waters immediately prior to, during, and after the fireworks display. During the aforementioned period, the Coast Guard will enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety zone (a)(1), Table 165.929, from 6:15 p.m. until 7:15 p.m. on March 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email marine event coordinator, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at (414) 747-7148, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the St. Patrick's Day Fireworks safety zone listed as item (a)(1) in Table 165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone. This safety zone will encompass all waters of the Manitowoc River within the arc of a circle with a 250-foot radius from a center point launch position at 44°05.492′ N., 087°39.332′ W. (NAD 83). As specified in 33 CFR 165.929, all vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the safety zone when it is enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide the maritime community with advance notification for the enforcement of this zone via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05418 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9958-96-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion for the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site (Site), located in Perdido, Baldwin County, Alabama, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct final deletion is being published by the EPA with the concurrence of the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), because the EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    This direct final deletion is effective May 16, 2017 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by April 17, 2017. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:

    www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: (404) 562-8896, Attention: Deborah P. Cox, PE.

    Mail: Deborah P. Cox, PE, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.

    Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

    U.S. EPA Record Center, attn: Ms. Tina Terrell, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Phone: (404) 562-8835, Hours 8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday through Friday by appointment only; or, Atmore Public Library, 700 East Church Street, Atmore, AL 36502, Phone: 251-368-5234, Hours 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday thru Friday, Saturday 9 a.m.-1 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah P. Cox, PE, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8317, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. NPL Deletion Criteria III. Deletion Procedures IV. Basis for Site Deletion V. Deletion Action I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 4 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in the Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such actions.

    Section II of this document explains the criteria to delete sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V discusses the EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

    II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;

    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and, therefore, the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

    III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:

    (1) The EPA consulted with the State of Alabama prior to developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the “Proposed Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    (2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their publication today, and the state, through ADEM, has concurred on the deletion of the site from the NPL.

    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, The Atmore Advance. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from the NPL.

    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified above.

    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion action, the EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.

    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

    IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting the Site from the NPL:

    Site Background and History

    The Perdido Ground Water Contamination Site is located in Perdido, Baldwin County, Alabama, and is the site of a train derailment, which occurred on May 17, 1965. The Site originated as a borrow area which provided sand and fill material to the County for local use. In 1965, a train derailment by the Louisville and Nashville Railroad (a predecessor of CSX Transportation, Inc., CSXT) occurred approximately 200 yards east of the intersection of State Highways 47 and 61. Chemicals from the derailed tank cars spilled into the drainage ditches along State Highway 61 and caught fire. Later, as a result of the accident, an unknown quantity of benzene that had not been destroyed by the fire eventually penetrated the soil and entered the ground water aquifer.

    In 1982, benzene was identified in several residential domestic water supply wells within the community of Perdido. An alternate supply of drinking water was provided by CSXT by constructing a waterline six miles from the nearby town of Atmore. Approximately 150 Perdido homes within a one mile radius of the derailment were connected to the alternate water supply.

    Due to the benzene in the ground water, the EPA proposed listing the Site on the National Priorities List (EPA ID: ALD980728703) on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58476), and finalized the listing on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658) under the CERCLA Act of 1980.

    Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    On October 11, 1985, CSXT executed an Administrative Order of Consent with the EPA to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. The RI was then initiated and submitted in August 1986. In March 1987, the EPA's Ground Water Technology Unit constructed a solute transport ground water model and predicted the extent of the ground water plume in the Perdido area. In April 1987 the Environmental Response Team (ERT) performed a soil vapor study. The revised RI was submitted in November 1987. Based on review of the data, the EPA requested the installation of additional monitoring wells further down gradient of the derailment area. CSXT's contractor completed a supplement to the revised RI report in May 1988. The supplement to the revised RI confirmed the presence of benzene in the ground water and led to the conclusion that by approximately 1985, all of the benzene in the soils had leached to the ground water, volatilized to the atmosphere, or biodegraded. As a result of these actions, the “source” of contamination at the Site had been “remediated” by natural processes.

    A risk assessment of current and potential routes of exposure at the Site identified several exposure pathways. The potential exposure pathway for humans was determined to be ingestion of contaminated ground water. Additional pathways investigated included ingestion of and dermal contact with surface water for humans and ingestion of surface water by cattle. These additional pathways were removed from further consideration because the benzene spill occurred over 20 years ago, benzene is a highly volatile substance and benzene had been detected only in ground water. The EPA ultimately determined that continued migration of contaminated ground water was a threat to public health and the environment in the area surrounding and down gradient of the contaminant plume.

    In May, 1988, CXST submitted the FS report, which evaluated three remedial alternatives to address contaminated ground water. These three alternatives were as follows:

    • Ground water withdrawal with off-site benzene removal.

    • Ground water withdrawal with on-site benzene removal.

    • No action, with natural attenuation/degradation of benzene in ground water.

    Selected Remedy

    The EPA's Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on September 30, 1988, and ADEM concurred with the selected remedy of ground water extraction with on-site treatment. The selected remedy for the ground water contamination included the following:

    • Recovery of the contaminated ground water by means of a recovery well field;

    • Treatment of the recovered contaminated ground water by air stripping to achieve the 5 parts per billion (ppb) maximum concentration limit (MCL) cleanup level established for benzene;

    • Re-injection of the treated ground water back into the aquifer and into the surface water.

    Operation and maintenance activities required to ensure the continued effectiveness of the remedy included:

    • Periodic monitoring of the pump and treat system to ensure continued effectiveness in attaining cleanup standards;

    • Periodic ground water monitoring to ensure that long term performance goals have been achieved.

    The ROD also specified that once the ground water cleanup level was attained, ground water monitoring would be required for an additional five years to ensure cleanup levels were maintained.

    The remedial action objectives for the Site were to eliminate potential health hazards due to the impact of benzene in ground water that resulted from the May 1965, train derailment in Perdido, Alabama, and restoration of the contaminated ground water to levels protective of human health and the environment. The EPA's MCL of 5 μg/L benzene in ground water was to be used as the criteria for measuring whether the remedial action objective had been met. During start-up of the treatment system in December 1992, the reinjection system was unable to accept the design flows. In May 1993, the EPA approved an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for a surface water discharge system to discharge excess treated water to the Perdido Creek.

    Response Actions

    The remedial design (RD) Report for the Site was submitted in December 1991, and construction of the ground water treatment system was completed between May and November 1992, with a Pre-Final Remedial Action (RA) Inspection completed on July 7, 1993. On September 3, 1993 the Revised RA Report, documenting that all construction requirements were met and installation of the treatment system was complete, was submitted to the EPA, and subsequently approved on September 13, 1993. The initial treatment system included twelve ground water withdrawal wells, which delivered contaminated ground water to the treatment plant. The treatment plant consisted of nine air strippers that transferred benzene from the contaminated water into the air stream, which in turn passed through the carbon adsorption unit prior to release to the atmosphere. The treated water passed through bag filters for removal of solids prior to being pumped to the reinjection system. The ten reinjection wells were each equipped with controllers to regulate the flow of injection water back into the aquifer. Twenty-four observation wells were also installed between 1986 and 1991, primarily for water level or benzene concentration monitoring. An additional observation well was installed in 1999.

    During start-up of the treatment system in December 1992, the reinjection system was unable to accept the design flows. The excess water flooded the injection system and activated a high-level cut-off switch that shut down the entire system. To alleviate this problem and allow the ground water remediation to start, a surface water discharge system was proposed to handle the excess water. The EPA subsequently approved the proposal for a surface water discharge system to the Perdido Creek in the Site's May 1993 ESD. In June 1993, the surface water discharge line and the originally designed Hazleton Maxi-StrippersTM were installed. Modifications were made to divert treated water to the surface water discharge system once capacity of the reinjection system was reached. Ground water recovery withdrawal and treatment began in 1992 after start-up of the treatment system.

    CSXT conducted more frequent inspections during January through March 1997 that revealed significant improvements could be made to optimize treatment system performance. Originally, the extraction wells were installed with pneumatic pumps, which tended to vibrate the wells and to cause an influx of sand into the system. In fall 1997, these pumps were replaced with electric submersible pumps, increasing system reliability and performance. Additionally, because of the high levels of iron and sand content in the influent ground water, the small orifices in the original Hazleton Maxi-StripperTM system would become plugged. Considerable maintenance efforts were required to clean each of the orifices of the stripper by hand using a small drill. In April 1998, the Hazleton Maxi-StrippersTM system was replaced with a New England Environmental Products low profile, four tray air stripper. Maintenance efforts and costs were significantly reduced after these changes were implemented.

    In 1999 CSXT further optimized treatment by installing three biosparge wells (BS-1, -2, and -3). These wells were intended to provide dissolved oxygen to areas of the benzene plume that were exhibiting decreased levels of dissolved oxygen, subsequently increasing the natural degradation of the benzene plume. In February and April 2000, nine additional biosparge wells were added on Site north of Highway 47 (BS-4 through BS-12). Twelve new biosparge wells (BS-13 thru BS-24) were installed in September 2003 on Site south of Highway 47.

    Clean-Up Levels

    Based on the success of remedial activities in reducing the benzene plume, the EPA, ADEM, CSXT and CSXT consultant, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AMEC), met on August 2, 2005 to discuss an Interim Evaluation Work Plan (IEWP) that would involve shutting down the ground water treatment system and monitoring ground water conditions for a period of one year in order to determine future remedial actions. A primary goal of the plan was to determine whether ground water benzene concentrations would remain below the 5 μg/L MCL cleanup goal or “rebound” after the pump-and-treat and biosparge systems were turned off. The EPA and ADEM approved the plan on July 25, 2006. On September 24, 2006, the ground water treatment system was turned off.

    Results of the first-quarter and second-quarter ground water sampling under the IEWP were submitted in January 2007 and April 2007, respectively. The results indicated that benzene concentrations in ground water remained consistent with historical data and did not rebound. Based on the data, implementation of the IEWP continued. On May 21, 2007, all parties agreed that the fourth-quarter sampling event would be replaced with a closure strategy if the third-quarter monitoring results continued to follow the positive trend. ADEM also requested the use of a low-flow micro-purging method to collect samples at different depths in two wells (Observation Well 41 (OW-41) and Withdrawal Well 14 (WW-14)). After approval from ADEM, this sampling approach was followed during the third-quarter sampling under the IEWP in June 2007. Based on the sampling results, a Closure Monitoring Plan (CMP) was drafted to make changes to the current ground water monitoring program, remedial actions and site closure procedures in a series of phases to bring the Site to closure in accordance with the 1990 Consent Decree (CD) with CSXT.

    Addendum I to the CMP dated January 16, 2008 was submitted after a team conference call. ADEM and the EPA approved the CMP with Addendum I in January and February 2008, respectively. Recommendations in the approved CMP included: Continued monitoring the 10 out of 42 total site observation and withdrawal wells that had not yet achieved sample results below the benzene clean-up goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years; Monitoring of these 10 wells on a semi-annual basis and reporting the data on a semi-annual basis; Discontinuation of the monitoring of observation and withdrawal wells located south of Highway 47 once a well has remained below the benzene cleanup goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years and properly plugging and abandoning all the wells (including observation, withdrawal, biosparge and injection wells) located south of Highway 47 once ground water benzene concentrations have remained below the benzene cleanup goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years; Discontinuation of the monitoring of observation and withdrawal wells located north of Highway 47 once a well has remained below the benzene cleanup goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years and properly plugging and abandoning all wells located north of Highway 47 once ground water benzene concentrations within all observation and withdrawal wells have remained below the benzene cleanup goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years.

    Addendum II to the CMP dated October 9, 2008 presented the minor revisions discussed during the September 3, 2008 team conference call. Clarification was provided to identify the type of public notification to be implemented prior to conducting closure type of events. ADEM approved the actions proposed in Addendum II on December 2008.

    Community Involvement

    Throughout the removal and remedial process, the EPA has kept the public informed of the activities being conducted at the Site by way of public meetings, progress fact sheets, and the announcement through local newspaper advertisement on the availability of documents such as the RI/FS, Risk Assessment, ROD, Proposed Plan, ESD and Five-Year Reviews.

    On July 25, 2006 representatives from the EPA, ADEM CSXT, and AMEC held a public availability session, regarding the upcoming IEWP for the Site. The purpose of the availability session was to inform the general public and local residents living near the Site, of the success of the long term cleanup activities at the Site. At the time of the meeting, benzene was detected in only three of the monitoring wells, with two of those exceeding the 5 μg/L cleanup level.

    On September 16, 2009 representatives from the EPA, ADEM, CSXT, and AMEC held a public availability session to discuss the closure of a portion of the monitoring network, located south of Highway 47. These wells had completed five years of sampling with laboratory results below the 5 μg/L cleanup goal. In accordance with the approved CMP, this milestone achievement allowed the southern portion of the former plume to be eligible for closure.

    On March 19, 2014 representatives held a public availability session to discuss the attainment of cleanup goals for five consecutive years in each of the remaining monitoring wells. With the attainment of all cleanup goals set forth for the Site, this public availability session served to inform the local community that all monitoring and site related activities would cease.

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket, which the EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL, are available to the public in the information repositories identified above.

    Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion From the NCP

    Region 4 has followed the procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425(e) as mentioned above and the implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of exposure. Specifically, ground water sampling results have been below the benzene clean-up goal of 5 μg/L for five consecutive years. These results verify that the Site has achieved the ROD cleanup standards, and that all cleanup actions specified in the ROD and ESD have been implemented. All selected remedial and removal action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and guidance. This Site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9320.22, Close-Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites. No further Superfund response is needed to protect human health and the environment.

    V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Alabama through ADEM, has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. Therefore, the EPA is deleting the Site from the NPL.

    Because the EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and routine, the EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will be effective May 16, 2017 unless the EPA receives adverse comments by April 17, 2017. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment period, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and it will not take effect. The EPA will prepare a response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent to delete and the comments already received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: September 6, 2016. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 1. The authority citation for part 300 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended] 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing “AL”, “Perdido Ground Water Contamination”, “Perdido”.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05290 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    DATES:

    Effective March 17, 2017. The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has reviewed this final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered by categorical exclusions A4 and A 7 in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Instruction 023-01-001-01, Appendix A.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

    PART 67—[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

    § 67.11 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet (NGVD)
  • + Elevation in feet
  • (NAVD)
  • # Depth in feet above ground
  • ⁁ Elevation in
  • meters (MSL)
  • Modified
  • Communities
  • affected
  • Washington County, Oregon and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-7749 and B-7775 Beal Creek Approximately 750 feet upstream of State Highway 47
  • Approximately 765 feet upstream of Main Street
  • +170
  • +172
  • City of Forest Grove, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Beaverton Creek At upstream side of Southwest 197th Avenue
  • Approximately 870 feet upstream of Southwest Laurelwood Avenue
  • +160
  • +267
  • City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Bethany Creek Approximately 0.21 mile downstream of Northwest 185th Avenue
  • Approximately 0.58 mile upstream of Northwest West Union Road
  • +174
  • +188
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Bronson Creek Approximately 65 feet downstream of Northwest Anzalone Drive
  • Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Northwest West Union Road
  • +158
  • +238
  • City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Butternut Creek Approximately 940 feet downstream of Southwest 209th Avenue
  • Approximately 80 feet upstream of Southwest Farmington Road
  • +165
  • +200
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Cedar Creek Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of Southwest Edy Road
  • Approximately 560 feet upstream of Southwest Sunset Boulevard
  • +145
  • +176
  • City of Sherwood, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Cedar Mill Creek Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of Portland & Western Railroad
  • Approximately 90 feet upstream of Northwest 113th Avenue
  • +171
  • +300
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Cedar Mill Creek—North Overflow At the Cedar Mill Creek confluence
  • Approximately 250 feet upstream of Southwest 131st Avenue
  • +207
  • +213
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Cedar Mill Creek—South Overflow At the Cedar Mill Creek confluence
  • At the upstream side of Southwest Evergreen Street
  • +195
  • +205
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Cedar Mill Creek—Upper North Overflow At the Cedar Mill Creek-North Overflow confluence
  • Approximately 550 feet upstream of the Cedar Mill Creek-North Overflow confluence
  • +212
  • +214
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Celebrity Creek At the Butternut Creek confluence
  • Approximately 65 feet downstream of Southwest Farmington Road
  • +176
  • +212
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Chicken Creek Approximately 0.8 mile downstream of Southwest Roy Rogers Road
  • At the upstream side of Southwest Edy Road
  • +135
  • +157
  • City of Sherwood, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Chicken Creek—West Tributary At the upstream side of Southwest Elwert Road
  • Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Southwest Elwert Road
  • +151
  • +156
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Council Creek Approximately 0.25 mile downstream of Northwest Hobbs Road
  • Approximately 0.39 mile downstream of Beal Road
  • +156
  • +166
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Dairy Creek At the Tualatin River confluence
  • Approximately 125 feet upstream of Northwest Susbauer Road
  • +152
  • +159
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Dawson Creek Approximately 317 feet upstream of Northwest Brookwood Avenue
  • Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Northwest Shute Road
  • +151
  • +184
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Deer Creek Approximately 475 feet downstream of Northwest Kahneeta Drive
  • Approximately 90 feet upstream of Northwest 174th Avenue
  • +176
  • +202
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Erikson Creek Approximately 211 feet upstream of Southwest 144th Avenue
  • Approximately 322 feet upstream of Southwest 10th Street
  • +175
  • +203
  • City of Beaverton.
    Fanno Creek At the Tualatin River confluence
  • Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of Southwest Durham Road
  • +131
  • +131
  • City of Durham, City of Tigard.
    Glencoe Swale Approximately 980 feet upstream of McKay Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Northwest Sewell Road
  • +156
  • +201
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Golf Creek Approximately 390 feet upstream of Hall Creek confluence
  • Approximately 625 feet upstream of 97th Avenue
  • +198
  • +223
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Gordon Creek Approximately 275 feet upstream of Southwest River Road
  • Approximately 0.25 mile upstream of Southwest 229th Avenue
  • +146
  • +196
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Hall Creek Approximately 175 feet downstream of the North Fork Hall Creek confluence
  • At the downstream side of Southwest 87th Avenue
  • +181
  • +256
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Hall Creek—106th Tributary At the Hall Creek confluence
  • Approximately 600 feet upstream of Southwest 106th Avenue
  • +191
  • +245
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Hall Creek South Fork Approximately 750 feet downstream of Southwest 96th Avenue
  • Approximately 150 feet upstream of Southwest 86th Avenue
  • +213
  • +260
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Hedges Creek At the downstream side of Southwest Boones Ferry Road
  • Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of Southwest Teton Avenue
  • +129
  • +142
  • City of Tualatin, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Holcomb Creek Approximately 500 feet upstream of Rock Creek North confluence
  • Approximately 0.15 mile upstream of Northwest Plastics Drive
  • +178
  • +211
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    McKay Creek At the Dairy Creek confluence
  • At the upstream side of Northwest Union Road
  • +156
  • +174
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    North Fork Hall Creek At the Hall Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Center Street
  • +181
  • +183
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    North Johnson Creek At the Cedar Mill Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Johnson Creek-East Tributary confluence
  • +187
  • +307
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    North Johnson Creek—East Tributary At the North Johnson Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of North Johnson Creek confluence
  • +249
  • +327
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    North Johnson Creek—North Tributary Approximately 0.24 mile downstream of Northwest 114th Avenue
  • Approximately 0.22 mile upstream of Northwest 112th Avenue
  • +212
  • +343
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Rock Creek North Approximately 0.47 mile downstream of Northwest Union Road
  • Approximately 0.75 mile upstream of Old Cornelius Pass Road
  • +174
  • +247
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Rock Creek South Approximately 750 feet downstream of Southwest Pacific Highway
  • Approximately 0.32 mile upstream of Portland & Western Railroad
  • +134
  • +139
  • City of Sherwood, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    South Johnson Creek Approximately 800 feet downstream of Southwest Hart Road
  • Approximately 160 feet upstream of Southwest Hart Road
  • +205
  • +219
  • City of Beaverton, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Storey Creek Approximately 200 feet upstream of the Waible Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.80 mile upstream of Storey Creek-Middle Tributary confluence
  • +164
  • +197
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County
    Storey Creek—East Tributary At the Storey Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.35 mile upstream of Northwest Sunset Highway
  • +173
  • +188
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Storey Creek—Middle Tributary Approximately 870 feet upstream of the Storey Creek confluence
  • At the upstream side of Northwest West Union Road
  • +180
  • +196
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Tualatin River Approximately 490 feet downstream of the Tualatin River Overflow to Nyberg Slough confluence
  • Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Southwest Roy Rogers Road
  • +126
  • +135
  • City of Durham, City of King City, City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Tualatin River Approximately 1.6 miles downstream of Southwest Golf Course Road
  • Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of the Gales Creek confluence
  • +153
  • +168
  • City of Cornelius, City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Tualatin River—Golf Overflow Approximately 150 feet downstream of Southwest Golf Course Road
  • Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of Southwest Golf Course Road
  • +156
  • +162
  • City of Forest Grove, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Tualatin River—LaFollett Overflow Approximately 0.3 mile upstream of Southwest Golf Course Road
  • At the downstream side of Southwest LaFollett Road
  • +157
  • +160
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Tualatin River Overflow to Nyberg Slough At the Tualatin River confluence
  • Approximately 300 feet downstream of the divergence from the Tualatin River
  • +126
  • +129
  • City of Tualatin.
    Turner Creek Approximately 450 feet downstream of Southeast 32nd Avenue
  • Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of East Main Street
  • +147
  • +168
  • City of Hillsboro.
    Waible Creek Approximately 0.25 mile upstream of McKay Creek confluence
  • Approximately 0.25 mile upstream of the Waible Creek-North Tributary confluence
  • +160
  • +196
  • Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Waible Creek—North Tributary At the Waible Creek confluence
  • At the upstream side of Northwest West Union Road
  • +192
  • +207
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    Waible Creek—South Tributary At the Waible Creek confluence
  • Approximately 90 feet upstream of Northwest Jacobson Road
  • +179
  • +211
  • City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    West Fork Dairy Creek Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Northwest Wilson River Highway
  • Approximately 0.72 mile downstream of Northwest Banks Road
  • +195
  • +196
  • City of Banks.
    Willow Creek Approximately 400 feet upstream of Beaverton Creek confluence
  • At the upstream side of Northwest 141st Place
  • +162
  • +239
  • City of Beaverton, City of Hillsboro, Unincorporated Areas of Washington County.
    * National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
  • + North American Vertical Datum.
  • # Depth in feet above ground.
  • ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
  • City of Banks Maps are available for inspection at City Administrative Offices, 13680 Northwest Main Street, Banks, OR 97106. City of Beaverton Maps are available for inspection at Community Development Department, 4755 Southwest Griffith Drive, Beaverton, OR 97005. City of Cornelius Maps are available for inspection at the Planning Department, 1300 South Kodiak Circle, Cornelius, OR 97113. City of Durham Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 17160 Southwest Upper Boones Ferry Road, Durham, OR 97224. City of Forest Grove Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1924 Council Street, Forest Grove, OR 97116. City of Hillsboro Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 150 East Main Street, Hillsboro, OR 97123. City of King City Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 15300 Southwest 116th Avenue, King City, OR 97224. City of Sherwood Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 22560 Southwest Pine Street, Sherwood, OR 97140. City of Tigard Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 13125 Southwest Hall Boulevard, Tigard, OR 97223. City of Tualatin Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 18880 Southwest Martinazzi Avenue, Tualatin, OR 97062. Unincorporated Areas of Washington County Maps are available for inspection at the Washington County Public Services Building, 155 North 1st Avenue, Suite 350, Hillsboro, OR 97124.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05154 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 26, 2015, FEMA published in the Federal Register a final rule that contained an erroneous table. This rule provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published. The table provided here represents the final Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs and communities affected for St. Charles County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas.

    DATES:

    Effective March 17, 2017. The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 26, 2015, FEMA published in the Federal Register a final rule that contained an erroneous table. This rule provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published at 80 FR 65162-65164.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in flood prone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has reviewed this final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered by categorical exclusions A4 and A 7 in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Instruction 023-01-001-01, Appendix A.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Correction

    In the final rule published at 80 FR 65162-65164 in the October 26, 2015 issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table titled “St. Charles County, Missouri, and Incorporated Areas”. This table contained inaccurate information as to the community name for the City of Dardenne Prairie featured in the table. In this document, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information. The information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

    PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

    § 67.11 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
  • (NGVD)
  • + Elevation in feet
  • (NAVD)
  • # Depth in feet above ground
  • ⁁ Elevation in
  • meters (MSL)
  • Modified
  • Communities affected
    St. Charles County, Missouri and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1062 and B-1167 Baltic Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of the confluence with Tributary 7
  • +470
  • +492
  • City of Cottleville, City of St. Peters, City of Weldon Spring, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Blanchette Creek (Backwater from Missouri River) Just downstream of Katy Trail/Abandoned Railroad
  • At the confluence with the Missouri River
  • +455
  • +455
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Boschert Creek At the confluence with Cole Creek
  • Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of Sibley Street
  • +441
  • +532
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Cole Creek Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of the confluence with Boschert Creek
  • Approximately 800 feet upstream of Graystone Drive
  • +443
  • +529
  • City of St. Charles.
    Crooked Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 0.7 mile upstream of I-64
  • +475
  • +574
  • City of Cottleville, City of O'Fallon, City of Weldon Spring, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Crystal Springs Creek (Backwater from Missouri River) At the confluence with the Missouri River
  • Approximately 871 feet upstream of South River Road
  • +457
  • +457
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Cunningham Branch At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 1,250 feet upstream of State Highway D
  • +535
  • +644
  • City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Dardenne Creek Approximately 400 feet downstream of Norfold Southern Railroad
  • Approximately 2.3 miles upstream of Oberhelman Road
  • +444
  • +748
  • City of Cottleville, City of Dardenne Prairie, City of O'Fallon, City of St. Peters, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Duckett Creek (Overflow from Missouri River) At the confluence with the Missouri River
  • Approximately 0.5 miles upstream of Jungs Station Road
  • +462
  • +463
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    East Branch Spencer Creek At the confluence with Spencer Creek
  • Just downstream of Boone Hills Drive.
  • +458
  • +503
  • City of St. Peters.
    East Branch Tributary B At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 150 feet upstream of State Highway K
  • +480
  • +525
  • City of Cottleville, City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    East Cole Creek At the confluence with Cole Creek
  • Approximately 600 feet upstream of Canary Lane
  • +457
  • +478
  • City of St. Charles.
    Femme Osage Creek (Backwater from Missouri River) Approximately 0.4 miles downstream of State Highway 94
  • Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of Defiance Road
  • +476
  • +476
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Kraut Run At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Wilson Road
  • +506
  • +607
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Lake Sainte Louise Entire shoreline within community +546 City of Lake St. Louis. Little Dardenne Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 0.9 mile upstream of Morrison Lane
  • +554
  • +719
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Mississippi River At the St. Charles County, Missouri/St. Louis County, Missouri/Madison County, Illinois county boundary, approximately 6.2 miles downstream of Melvin Price Lock and Dam
  • At the St. Charles County/Lincoln County boundary, approximately 3.0 miles upstream of confluence with Peruue Creek
  • +434
  • +444
  • City of O'Fallon, City of Portage Des Sioux, City of St. Charles, City of St. Paul, City of St. Peters, Town of West Alton, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Missouri River At the St. Charles County, Missouri/St. Louis County, Missouri/Madison County, Illinois county boundary, approximately 7.4 miles downstream of the Lewis Bridge
  • Near the St. Charles County/Warren County boundary, approximately 22.3 miles upstream of the Daniel Boone Bridge
  • +434
  • +492
  • City of St. Charles, City of Weldon Spring, Town of West Alton, Town of Augusta, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Oday Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 425 feet upstream of State Highway N
  • +505
  • +587
  • City of Lake St. Louis, City of O'Fallon, City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Old Dardenne Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek +486 City of Dardenne Prairie. Approximately 350 feet upstream of U.S. Route 40/61 +502 City of O'Fallon, City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County. Peruque Creek Approximately 0.3 mile downstream of State Highway Z
  • Approximately 1.3 miles upstream of State Highway T
  • +530
  • +630
  • City of Foristell, City of Wentzville, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 12 At the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Meadow Farm Lane
  • +471
  • +527
  • City of St. Paul, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 14 Approximately 0.2 mile upstream of the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Civic Park Drive
  • +464
  • +512
  • City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 15 Approximately 900 feet upstream of the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of Main Street
  • +464
  • +507
  • City of O'Fallon.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 2 At the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 600 feet upstream of State Highway T
  • +613
  • +734
  • City of Foristell, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 8 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 0.6 mile upstream of I-70
  • +505
  • +546
  • City of Lake St. Louis, City of Wentzville.
    Peruque Creek Tributary 9 Approximately 1.0 mile upstream of the confluence with Peruque Creek
  • Approximately 0.4 mile upstream of Henke Road
  • +505
  • +539
  • City of Lake St. Louis, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Sandfort Creek Just downstream of Norfolk Southern Railroad
  • Approximately 350 feet downstream of Muegge Road
  • +442
  • +497
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Schote Creek At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 1.6 miles upstream of U.S. Route 40/61.
  • +481
  • +583
  • City of Dardenne Prairie, City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Spencer Creek Approximately 365 feet upstream of the railroad
  • Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Millwood Drive
  • +444
  • +526
  • City of St. Peters, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Taylor Branch (Backwater from Missouri River) At the confluence with the Missouri River
  • Approximately 0.6 miles upstream of South River Road
  • +460
  • +460
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary A At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 500 feet upstream of Starlight Drive
  • +469
  • +536
  • City of St. Peters, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 1 At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 400 feet upstream of Harris Drive
  • +464
  • +473
  • City of St. Peters, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 13 At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 700 feet upstream of McClure Road
  • +486
  • +508
  • City of Dardenne Prairie, City of O'Fallon.
    Tributary No. 15 At the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 300 feet upstream of Keystone Crossing Drive
  • +495
  • +567
  • City of Dardenne Prairie, City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 17 Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 900 feet upstream of Hopewell Road
  • +522
  • +895
  • City of O'Fallon, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 19 Approximately 1,300 feet upstream of the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • Approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the confluence with Dardenne Creek
  • +505
  • +573
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 2 Just upstream of Ohmes Road
  • Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Ohmes Road
  • +465
  • +478
  • City of St. Peters.
    Tributary No. 3 At the confluence with Tributary A
  • Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of St. Peters-Howell Road
  • +469
  • +503
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 4 At the confluence with Tributary A
  • Approximately 1,150 upstream of Woodstream Drive
  • +469
  • +509
  • City of St. Peters, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    Tributary No. 7 At the confluence with Baltic Creek
  • Approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Pitmann Hill Road
  • +482
  • +504
  • City of St. Peters, City of Weldon Spring.
    Tributary No. 9 At the confluence with Crooked Creek
  • Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Guthermuth Road
  • +480
  • +497
  • City of Weldon Spring, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    West Branch Spencer Creek At the confluence with Spencer Creek
  • Approximately 400 feet upstream of Willott Road
  • +450
  • +510
  • Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    West Branch Tributary B At the confluence with East Branch Tributary B
  • Approximately 150 feet upstream of Bryan Road
  • +489
  • +622
  • City of Dardenne Prairie.
    West Sandfort Creek At the confluence with Sandfort Creek
  • Approximately 1,400 feet upstream of Harry S. Truman Boulevard
  • +450
  • +459
  • City of St. Charles, Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County.
    * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. ADDRESSES City of Cottleville: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 5490 5th Street, Cottleville, MO 63338. City of Dardenne Prairie: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 2032 Hanley Road, Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368. City of Foristell: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 121 Mulberry Street, Foristell, MO 63348. City of Lake St. Louis: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 Civic Center Drive, Lake St. Louis, MO 63367. City of O'Fallon: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 100 North Main Street, O'Fallon, MO 63366. City of Portage Des Sioux: Maps are available for inspection at the County Administration Building, 201 North 2nd Street, Room 420, St. Charles, MO 63301. City of St. Charles: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 North 2nd Street, St. Charles, MO 63301. City of St. Paul: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 2300 St. Paul Road, St. Paul, MO 63366. City of St. Peters: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 1 St. Peters Centre Boulevard, St. Peters, MO 63376. City of Weldon Spring: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 5401 Independence Road, Weldon Spring, MO 63304. City of Wentzville: Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 310 West Pearce Boulevard, Wentzville, MO 63385. Town of Augusta: Maps are available for inspection at Town Hall, 239 Green Street, Augusta, MO 63332. Town of West Alton: Maps are available for inspection at 201 North 2nd Street, Room 420, St. Charles, MO 63301. Unincorporated Areas of St. Charles County: Maps are available for inspection at the County Adminstration Building, 201 North 2nd Street, Room 420, St. Charles, MO 63301.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05157 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    DATES:

    Effective March 17, 2017. The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has reviewed this final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered by categorical exclusions A4 and A7 identified in FEMA Instruction 108-1-1 and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Instruction 023-01-001-01, Appendix A.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

    PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

    § 67.11 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
  • (NGVD)
  • + Elevation in feet
  • (NAVD)
  • # Depth in feet
  • above ground
  • ⁁ Elevation in
  • meters (MSL)
  • Modified
  • Communities affected
    Carroll County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1223 Big Sand Creek Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of State Route 35 +214 Town of Carrollton. Approximately 800 feet upstream of State Route 35 +222 * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. ADDRESSES Town of Carrollton Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 701 Lexington Street, Carrollton, MS 38917.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05151 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150121066-5717-02] RIN 0648-XF274 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Fisheries AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective 11:30 p.m., local time, March 20, 2017, through December 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

    Based on reported landings from the NMFS Automated Catch Reporting System and the North Carolina Tagging Program, NMFS projects that the codified Angling category southern area trophy BFT subquota will be reached by March 20, 2017, and has determined that a closure of the southern area trophy BFT fishery is warranted. Therefore, retaining, possessing, or landing large medium or giant BFT south of 39°18′ N. lat. and outside the Gulf of Mexico by persons aboard vessels permitted in the HMS Angling category and the HMS Charter/Headboat category (when fishing recreationally) must cease at 11:30 p.m. local time on March 20, 2017. This closure will remain effective through December 31, 2017. This action is intended to prevent overharvest of the Angling category southern area trophy BFT subquota, and is taken consistent with the regulations at § 635.28(a)(1).

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

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

    Classification

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

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

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

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

    Authority:

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

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05387 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 51 Friday, March 17, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7852; Notice No. 25-17-01-SC] Special Conditions: AmSafe; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed special conditions.

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes special conditions for a supplemental type certificate for installing an inflatable restraint system with non-rechargeable lithium batteries on seats in certain transport category airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by AmSafe, will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is a non-rechargeable lithium battery. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on or before April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-7852 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

    The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

    Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

    On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, and our intention for other special conditions for other makes and models to be effective on that same date or 30 days after publication, whichever is later. The effective date of special conditions no. 25-612-SC is April 22, 2017.

    Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    AmSafe is the holder of supplemental type certificate (STC) no. ST02152LA. This STC is for the installation of an inflatable restraint system with non-rechargeable lithium batteries on seats in several transport category airplanes. AmSafe periodically applies to amend this STC to expand its applicability to include additional transport category airplane makes and models. The current battery requirements in Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, AmSafe must show that airplanes for which they make application to modify by STC no. ST02152LA, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in each airplane's respective type certificate or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

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

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the airplanes modified by STC no. ST02152LA must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    STC no. ST02152LA is for the installation of an inflatable restraint system that incorporates non-rechargeable lithium batteries, which are a novel or unusual design feature.

    For the purpose of these special conditions, we refer to a battery and battery system as a battery. A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging.

    Discussion

    The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

    Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries revealed unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

    On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery, in an emergency locator transmitter installation, demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

    Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

    • Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

    • Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

    • Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

    Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

    Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

    Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

    Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

    Proposed special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Proposed special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Proposed special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

    Proposed special condition nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

    Proposed special condition nos. 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

    The FAA proposes special condition no. 4 to make it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

    Proposed special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    While proposed special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Proposed special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

    These proposed special conditions apply in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 for the installation of inflatable restraint systems with non-rechargeable lithium batteries on the seats of the subject airplanes. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 remain in effect for other battery installations on these airplanes.

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

    Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the airplane models listed on the approved model list (AML) of STC no. ST02152LA, which is available at rgl.faa.gov. Should AmSafe apply at a later date for a change to STC no. ST02152LA to include any other model on the AML to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. Should AmSafe apply at a later date for another STC to modify any other model included on the type certificates of the models on the STC no. ST02152LA AML to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to that model as well.

    These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after its effective date.

    These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

    Conclusion

    This action only affects the installation of inflatable restraint systems with non-rechargeable lithium batteries on seats on the airplane models listed on the AML of STC no. ST02152LA. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who will apply to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the FAA proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for airplane models listed on the approved model list of supplemental type certificate no. ST02152LA, modified by AmSafe.

    Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

    4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

    8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

    Note:

    A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 30, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05198 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Parts 350 and 360 [Docket No. 17-CRB-0012-RM] Copyright Royalty Board Regulations Regarding Filing of Claims to Royalty Fees Collected Under Compulsory License AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend regulations governing the filing of claims to royalty fees collected under compulsory license to reflect implementation of a new electronic filing system and to consolidate cable and satellite rules. The Judges solicit comments on the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Comments are due no later than April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit electronic comments via email to [email protected]. Those who choose not to submit comments electronically should see “How to Submit Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for physical addresses and further instructions. The proposed rule is also posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Program Specialist by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 23, 2016, the Library of Congress awarded a contract for the design and implementation of an electronic filing and case management system for the Copyright Royalty Board (“Board”). The Copyright Royalty Judges (“Judges”) anticipate that the new system will be available for use by claims filers, participants in proceedings before the Judges, and other members of the public having business with the Board (e.g., persons wishing to comment on proposed regulations) by summer 2017. The Judges intend to make use of the system mandatory for attorneys representing participants in proceedings after a transition period.1

    1 The Judges proposed regulations relating specifically to implementation of eCRB at 81 FR 84526 (Nov. 23, 2016).

    As part of the Judges' continuing oversight of the Board's procedural regulations, the Judges propose to amend the claims filing regulations to accommodate electronic filing of claims. In addition, the Judges propose to consolidate nearly identical regulations for cable and satellite claims and make other amendments to the claims regulation to remove outdated references and enhance readability.

    I. Part 350—General Administrative Provisions

    The Judges propose adding a new rule 350.5(c)(3) which would provide that any claimant desiring to file with the Copyright Royalty Board a claim for distribution of copyright royalties may obtain an eCRB password. While filing of claims through eCRB will not be mandatory, any claimant wishing to file claims through eCRB will be required to obtain an eCRB password. Obtaining a password for claims filing will entail filling in a webform and responding to a confirmation email to activate the account. The eCRB system will also have an automated password recovery feature so that users who have forgotten their password can reset their password without human intervention.

    The Judges proposed this regulation in the notice soliciting comments on the proposed eFiling regulations 2 but decided to re-propose it in response to a comment received on the earlier proposal.

    2See 81 FR 84526.

    II. Part 360—Filing of Claims to Royalty Fees Collected Under Compulsory Licenses

    The Judges propose revisions to Part 360 to accommodate filing of claims through the new electronic filing system. Proposed new rules 360.1 through 360.5 (proposed Subpart A) would replace current rules 360.1 through 360.15 (current Subparts A and B), which separately set out the filing requirements for cable and satellite claims. The current rules contain redundant information, which the Judges propose to remove. In addition, the proposal makes reference, where applicable, to the new electronic filing system (eCRB). The proposal also adds a new definition section (rule 360.2), which would define the terms cable compulsory license royalty fees and satellite compulsory license royalty fees.

    Regulations for Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media Royalty Claims (DART), currently in rules 360.20 through 360.25 (Subpart C), would be redesignated as 360.20 through 360.24 (Subpart B). For the most part, the substance of the current DART rules would be retained, although the proposal makes applicable references to eCRB. In addition, proposed new rule 360.24 sets out the notice requirements of independent administrators appointed to manage and distribute royalty payments to nonfeatured musicians and vocalists and updates the timing of those administrators' notices. These provisions currently appear in rule 360.23.

    Finally, the proposal would add a new Subpart C: Rules of General Application, which would address amendment of claims (proposed new rule 360.30), withdrawal of claims (proposed new rule 360.31), and reinstatement of previously withdrawn claims (proposed new rule 360.23). The Judges believe that these proposals will provide important guidance on the process for amending, withdrawing, and reinstating claims.

    The Judges solicit comments on the rule proposal as a whole and on each of the proposed rules. In particular, the Judges seek comment on whether the proposed new rules that consolidate the cable and satellite claims filing rules enhances the clarity of those rules and appropriately reduces unnecessary redundancies. The Judges also seek comment on whether there are other opportunities within these proposed rules to further enhance clarity or whether separate rules for cable and satellite filings would be more appropriate. The Judges also seek comments on whether the proposed rules appropriately integrate references to eCRB. Finally, the Judges seek comment on the proposed new rules addressing the claim amendment, withdrawal, and reinstatement process. Are the proposed procedures reasonable and appropriate or would other procedures work better? If so, please specify those procedures and why they might be more appropriate than the ones the Judges propose. Are there procedures or other considerations not in the proposed claim amendment, withdrawal, and reinstatement process that the Judges should consider?

    How To Submit Comments

    Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. If not commenting by email or online, commenters must submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an electronic version on a CD.

    Email: [email protected]; or

    U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE. and D Street NE., Washington, DC; or

    Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000.

    List of Subjects 37 CFR Part 350

    Copyright Royalty Judges Rules and Procedures, General administrative provisions.

    37 CFR Part 360

    Filing of claims to royalty fees collected under compulsory license.

    Proposed Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority of chapter 8, title 17, United States Code, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend parts 350 and 360 of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    Subchapter B—Copyright Royalty Judges Rules and Procedures PART 350—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 350 continues to read: Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 803.

    2. In § 350.5 revise paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 350.5 Electronic Filing System.

    (c) * * *

    (3) Claimants. Any person desiring to file a claim with the Copyright Royalty Board for copyright royalties may obtain an eCRB password for the limited purpose of filing claims by completing the application form available on the CRB Web site.

    Subchapter C—Submission of Royalty Claims
    PART 360—FILING OF CLAIMS TO ROYALTY FEES COLLECTED UNDER COMPULSORY LICENSE 3. Revise part 360 to read as follows: Subpart A—Cable and Satellite Claims Sec. 360.1 General. 360.2 Definitions. 360.3 Time of filing. 360.4 Form and content of claims. 360.5 Copies of claims. Subpart B—Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media Royalty Claims 360.20 General. 360.21 Time of filing. 360.22 Form and content of claims. 360.23 Copies of claims. 360.24 Content of notices regarding independent administrators. Subpart C—Rules of General Application 360.30 Amendment of Claims. 360.31 Withdrawal of Claims. 360.32 Reinstatement of Previously Withdrawn Claims. Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 801, 803, 805.

    Subpart A also issued under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4) and 119(b)(4).

    Subpart B also issued under 17 U.S.C. 1007(a)(1).

    Subpart C also issued under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4), 119(b)(4) and 1007(a)(1).

    Subpart A—Cable and Satellite Claims
    § 360.1 General.

    This subpart prescribes procedures under 17 U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(A) and 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(4) whereby parties claiming entitlement to cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees must file claims with the Copyright Royalty Board.

    § 360.2 Definitions.

    For purposes of this subpart, the following definitions will apply:

    Cable compulsory license royalty fees means royalty fees deposited with the Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 111.

    Satellite compulsory license royalty fees means royalty fees deposited with the Copyright Office pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 119.

    § 360.3 Time of filing.

    (a) During the month of July each year, any party claiming to be entitled to cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the preceding calendar year must file a claim or claims with the Copyright Royalty Board. No party will receive royalty fees for secondary transmissions during the specified period unless the party has filed a timely claim to the fees. Claimants may file claims jointly or as a single claim. Claimants must file separate claims for cable compulsory license royalty fees and satellite compulsory license royalty fees. The Copyright Royalty Board will reject any claim that purports to be for both cable and satellite royalty fees.

    (b) Claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board will be considered timely filed only if they are filed online through eCRB or by mail or hand delivery in accordance with section 301.2 during the month of July, as determined in accordance with section 350.7.

    (c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in any year in which July 31 falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or other nonbusiness day within the District of Columbia or the Federal Government, the due date for claims to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees will be the first business day in August.

    (d) In the event the Copyright Royalty Board does not receive a claim that was properly addressed and mailed, the filer may prove proper filing of the claim if it was sent by certified mail return receipt requested, and the filer produces a receipt bearing a July date stamp of the United States Postal Service. The Copyright Royalty Board will accept no other offer of proof in lieu of the return receipt.

    (e) For claims filed electronically through eCRB, the Copyright Royalty Board will accept the confirmation email generated by eCRB as proof of filing. The Copyright Royalty Board will accept no other offer of proof regarding claims filed electronically through eCRB.

    § 360.4 Form and content of claims.

    (a) Forms. (1) Each filer must use the form prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Board to claim cable compulsory license royalty fees or satellite compulsory license royalty fees, and must provide all information required by that form and its accompanying instructions.

    (2) Copies of claim forms are available:

    (i) On the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.crb.gov/claims/ during the month of July for claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board by mail or by hand delivery;

    (ii) On the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.loc.gov/cable/ (for cable claims) or http://www.crb.gov/satellite/ (for satellite claims) during the month of July for claims filed online through eCRB; and

    (iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board by mail at the address set forth in section 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in section 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.

    (b) Content—(1) Single claim. A claim filed on behalf of a single copyright owner of a work or works secondarily transmitted by a cable system or satellite carrier must include the following information:

    (i) The full legal name, address, and email address of the copyright owner entitled to claim the royalty fees.

    (ii) A general statement of the nature of the copyright owner's work(s), and identification of at least one secondary transmission by a cable system or satellite carrier, as the case may be, of one of the copyright owner's works establishing a basis for the claim.

    (iii) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the single claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile shall fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.

    (iv) The name, telephone number, and email address of the person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.

    (v) An original signature of the copyright owner or of a duly authorized representative of the copyright owner, except for claims filed online through eCRB.

    (vi) A declaration of authority to file the claim and a certification of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

    (2) Joint claim. A claim filed on behalf of more than one copyright owner whose works have been secondarily transmitted by a cable system or satellite carrier must include the following information:

    (i) With the exception of joint claims filed by a performing rights organization on behalf of its members, a list including the full legal name, address, and email address of each copyright owner whose claim(s) are included in the joint claim. Claims filed online through eCRB must include an Excel spreadsheet containing the information if the number of joint claimants is in excess of ten. A performing rights organization is not required to list the name of each of its members or affiliates in the joint claim.

    (ii) A concise statement of the authorization by each named claimant for the person or entity to file the joint claim. For this purpose, a performing rights organization shall not be required to obtain from its members or affiliates separate authorizations, apart from their standard membership affiliation agreements.

    (iii) A general statement of the nature of the copyright owners' works, identification of at least one secondary transmission of one work by each identified copyright owner that has been secondarily transmitted by a cable system or satellite carrier establishing a basis for the joint claim.

    (iv) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the joint claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile shall fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.

    (v) The name, telephone number, and email address of a person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.

    (vi) Original signatures of the copyright owners identified on the joint claim or of a duly authorized representative or representatives of the copyright owners, except for claims filed online through eCRB.

    (vii) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a declaration of authority to file the claim and a certification of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

    (c) In the event the legal name and/or address of the copyright owner entitled to royalties or the person or entity filing the claim changes after the filing of the claim, the filer or the copyright owner shall notify the Copyright Royalty Board of the change. Any other proposed changes or amendments must be submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 360.30. If the good faith efforts of the Copyright Royalty Board to contact the copyright owner or filer are frustrated because of outdated or otherwise inaccurate contact information, the claim may be subject to dismissal. A person or entity that filed a claim online through eCRB must notify the Copyright Royalty Board of any change of name or address by updating the eCRB profile for that person or entity through eCRB as required by 37 CFR 350.5(g).

    § 360.5 Copies of claims.

    Following the instructions outlined in 37 CFR 301.2, a claimant must file an original and one copy of the claim to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees at the address(es) listed for each claim submitted to the Copyright Royalty Board by hand delivery or by U.S. mail.

    Subpart B—Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media Royalty Claims
    § 360.20 General.

    This subpart prescribes procedures whereby an interested copyright party, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7), claiming to be entitled to royalty payments made for the importation and distribution in the United States, or the manufacture and distribution in the United States, of digital audio recording devices and media (DART) pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1006, shall file claims with the Copyright Royalty Board.

    § 360.21 Time of filing.

    (a) General. During January and February of each year, every interested copyright party claiming to be entitled to DART royalty payments made for quarterly periods ending during the previous calendar year must file a claim with the Copyright Royalty Board. Claimants may file claims jointly or as a single claim.

    (b) Consequences of an untimely filing. No royalty payments for the previous calendar year will be distributed to any interested copyright party who has not filed a claim to those royalty payments during January or February of the following calendar year.

    (c) Authorization. Any organization or association acting as a common agent for collection and distribution of DART royalty fees must obtain from its members or affiliates separate, specific, and written authorization, signed by members, affiliates, or their representatives, apart from their standard affiliation agreements, for purposes of royalties claim filing and fee distribution relating to the DART Musical Works Fund or Sound Recordings Fund. The written authorization, however, will not be required for claimants to the Musical Works Fund when either:

    (1) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates specifically authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings; or

    (2) The agreement between the organization or association and its members or affiliates, as specified in a court order issued by a court with authority to interpret the terms of the contract, authorizes the entity to represent its members or affiliates as a common agent before the Copyright Royalty Board in royalty claims filing and fee distribution proceedings.

    § 360.22 Form and content of claims.

    (a) Forms. (1) Each claim to DART royalty payments must be furnished on a form prescribed by the Copyright Royalty Board and must contain the information required by that form and its accompanying instructions.

    (2) Copies of DART claim forms are available:

    (i) On the Copyright Royalty Board's Web site at http://www.crb.gov/claims for claims filed with the Copyright Royalty Board by mail or by hand delivery;

    (ii) On the Copyright Royalty Board's Web site at http://www.crb.gov/dart/ during the months of January and February for claims filed online through eCRB; and

    (iii) Upon request to the Copyright Royalty Board, by mail at the address set forth in section 301.2(a), by email at the address set forth in section 301.2(d), or by telephone at (202) 707-7658.

    (b) Content. Claims filed by interested copyright parties for DART royalty payments must include the following information:

    (1) The full legal name and address of the person or entity claiming royalty payments.

    (2) The name, telephone number, full mailing address, and email address of the person or entity filing the claim. The information contained in a filer's eCRB profile will fulfill this requirement for claims submitted through eCRB.

    (3) The name, telephone number, and email address of a person whom the Copyright Royalty Board can contact regarding the claim.

    (4) A statement as to how the claimant fits within the definition of interested copyright party.

    (5) A statement as to whether the claim is being made against the Sound Recordings Fund or the Musical Works Fund, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b), and as to which Subfund the claim is made. The Subfunds for the Sound Recordings Fund are the copyright owners subfund and the featured recording artists subfund, The Subfunds for the Musical Works Fund are the music publishers subfund and the writers subfund, as described in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1) through (2).

    (6) Identification, establishing a basis for the claim, of at least one musical work or sound recording embodied in a digital musical recording or an analog musical recording lawfully made under title 17 of the United States Code that has been distributed (as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(6)), and that, during the period to which the royalty payments claimed pertain, has been (i) Distributed (as that term is defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(6)) in the form of digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings, or (ii) Disseminated to the public in transmissions.

    (7) A declaration of the authority to file the claim and of the veracity of the information contained in the claim and the good faith of the person signing in providing the information. Penalties for fraud and false statements are provided under 18 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.

    (c) Claims must bear the original signature of the claimant or of a duly authorized representative of the claimant, except for claims filed online through eCRB.

    (d) In the event that the legal name and/or address of the claimant changes after the filing of the claim, the claimant must notify the Copyright Royalty Board of the change. Any other proposed changes or amendments must be submitted in accordance with 37 CFR 360.30. If the good faith efforts of the Copyright Royalty Board to contact the claimant are frustrated because of failure to notify the Copyright Royalty Board of a name and/or address change, the claim may be subject to dismissal. A person or entity that filed a claim online through eCRB must notify the Copyright Royalty Board of any change of name or address by updating that person or entity's eCRB profile as required by section 350.5(g).

    (e) If the claim is a joint claim, it must include a concise statement of the authorization for the filing of the joint claim in addition to the declaration required under paragraph (b)(7) of this section and the name of each claimant to the joint claim.

    (f) If an interested copyright party intends to file claims against more than one Subfund, each Subfund claim must be filed separately with the Copyright Royalty Board. The Copyright Royalty Board will reject any claim that purports to claim funds from more than one Subfund.

    § 360.23 Copies of claims.

    Following the instructions outlined in 37 CFR 301.2, a claimant must file an original and one copy of the claim to cable or satellite compulsory license royalty fees at the address(es) listed for each claim submitted to the Copyright Royalty Board by hand delivery or by U.S. mail.

    § 360.24 Content of notices regarding independent administrators.

    (a) The independent administrator jointly appointed by the interested copyright parties, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7)(A), and the American Federation of Musicians (or any successor entity) for the purpose of managing and ultimately distributing royalty payments to nonfeatured musicians as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1), must file a notice informing the Copyright Royalty Board of his/her name and address.

    (b) The independent administrator jointly appointed by the interested copyright parties, as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1001(7)(A) and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (or any successor entity) for the purpose of managing and ultimately distributing royalty payments to nonfeatured vocalists as defined in 17 U.S.C. 1006(b)(1), must file a notice informing the Copyright Royalty Board of his/her full name and address.

    (c) A notice filed under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section must include the full name, telephone number, mailing address, and email address of the place of business of the independent administrator.

    (d) The independent administrator must file the notices identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section through eCRB no later than March 31 of each year, commencing with March 31, 2018.

    Subpart C—Rules of General Application
    § 360.30 Amendment of Claims.

    Any claimant may amend a filed claim as of right by filing a Notice of Amendment during the statutory period for filing annual claims. After the expiration of the time for filing claims, a claimant may amend a claim only by order of the Copyright Royalty Judges, on motion showing good cause and lack of prejudice to other claimants to the applicable year's royalty funds. No filer may amend a filed claim to add additional claimants after the expiration of the time for filing claims.

    § 360.31 Withdrawal of Claims.

    Any claimant may withdraw its claim for any royalty year as of right by filing a Notice of Withdrawal of Claim(s). If a single claimant filed a Petition to Participate in a proceeding, withdrawal of the claim shall serve to dismiss the Petition to Participate. If the claimant withdrawing a claim was included on the Petition to Participate of another entity, withdrawal of the claim shall not affect the Petition to Participate as to other claims listed thereon.

    § 360.32 Reinstatement of Previously Withdrawn Claims.

    Once a claimant has withdrawn a claim, that claim may be reinstated only by order of the Copyright Royalty Judges, on motion showing good cause and lack of prejudice to other claimants to the applicable year's royalty funds.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Jesse M. Feder, Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05239 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9959-04-Region 4] National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion of the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 is issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Perdido Ground Water Contamination Superfund Site (Site) located in Baldwin County, Alabama, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), have determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, by mail to Deborah P. Cox, PE, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah P. Cox, PE, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8317, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” Section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Site without prior Notice of Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: September 6, 2016. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05289 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Chapter I [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0770; FRL-9960-09] Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA); TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Petition; reasons for Agency response.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides the reasons for EPA's response to a petition it received under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The TSCA section 21 petition was received from Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Toxic-Free Future, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, BlueGreen Alliance, and Environmental Health Strategy Center on December 13, 2016. The petitioners requested that EPA issue an order under TSCA section 4, requiring that testing be conducted by manufacturers (which includes importers) and processors on tetrabromobisphenol A (“TBBPA”) (CAS No. 79-94-7). After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.

    DATES:

    EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed March 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Virginia Lee, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-4142; email address: [email protected]

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may manufacture (which includes import) or process the chemical tetrabromobisphenol A (“TBBPA”) (CAS No. 79-94-7). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I access information about this petition?

    The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0770, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. 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 OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. TSCA Section 21 A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA section 4 or 5(e) or (f). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days of either a denial or the expiration of the 90-day period.

    B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA section 21 petition?

    1. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 21 petitions. Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested actions. Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA section 21 petition. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).

    2. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 4 rules. EPA must make several findings in order to issue a rule or order to require testing under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A)(i). In all cases, EPA must find that information and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects of a chemical substance on health or the environment and that testing of the chemical substance is necessary to develop the missing information. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In addition, EPA must find that the chemical substance may present an unreasonable risk of injury under section 4(a)(1)(A)(i). Id. If EPA denies a petition for a TSCA section 4 rule or order and the petitioners challenge that decision, TSCA section 21 allows a court to order EPA to initiate the action requested by the petitioner if the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence in a de novo proceeding that findings very similar to those described in this unit with respect to a chemical substance have been met.

    III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition A. What action was requested?

    On December 13, 2016, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Toxic-Free Future, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, BlueGreen Alliance, and Environmental Health Strategy Center petitioned EPA to issue an order under TSCA section 4(a)(1), 90 days after the petition was filed, requiring that testing be conducted by manufacturers (which includes importers) and processors on tetrabromobisphenol A (“TBBPA”) (CAS No. 79-94-7) (Ref. 1).

    B. What support do the petitioners offer?

    The petitioners state section 4(a)(1) of TSCA requires EPA to direct testing on a chemical substance or mixture if it finds the following criteria are met:

    1. The manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of a chemical substance or mixture, or that any combination of such activities, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

    2. There is insufficient information and experience upon which the effects of such manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of such substance or mixture, or of any combination of such activities on health or the environment can reasonably be determined or predicted.

    3. Testing is necessary to develop such information.

    The petitioners assert that TBBPA “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” because there is substantial evidence that TBBPA may be toxic, including conclusions from:

    • EPA's TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2), which states TBBPA “can be considered hazardous to the environment” and that “there is some concern” for certain cancers and developmental effects.

    • The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has identified TBBPA as probably carcinogenic to humans (Ref. 3).

    • Multiple in vitro and animal tests, where TBBPA has been detected to cause endocrine effects, reproductive effects, neurological effects, and immunological effects (Refs. 4-9).

    The petitioners also note that EPA, upon adding TBBPA in 1999 to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) established under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, concluded that “TBBPA is toxic” because “[i]t has the potential to kill fish, daphnid, and mysid shrimp, among other adverse effects, based on chemical and/or biological interactions.” 64 FR 58666, 58708. The petitioners assert there is TBBPA exposure to humans and the environment based on the following conclusions.

    • TBBPA has the highest production volume of any brominated flame retardant and is extensively used in consumer products, including children's products (Ref. 2). The potential for widespread exposure is extremely high.

    • In 2012, TRI indicated that 127,845 pounds of TBBPA were released into the environment (Ref. 2). Such releases indicate the potential for widespread exposure in the population.

    • The presence of TBBPA in people and the environment (biota and environmental media) is established and affirmed in EPA's TBBPA Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2).

    With the evidence of toxicity and exposure and EPA's addition of TBBPA to TRI (Ref. 10), the petitioners argue that TBBPA clearly meets the TSCA section 4 criteria for “may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”

    The petitioners also assert there is “insufficient information” on TBBPA based on EPA's TBBPA Problem Formulation (Ref. 2), which petitioners say cited lack of data for:

    • Dermal and inhalation exposures, diet and drinking water exposures, exposures to communities near facilities that manufacture and process TBBPA, exposures to communities near facilities where “e-waste” is disposed of and recycled, exposures to the workers in manufacturing, processing, disposal and recycling facilities, and exposures to degradation and combustion products.

    • developmental, reproductive and neurological toxicity, endocrine disruption, and genotoxic effects.

    The petitioners argue that the testing recommended in the petition is critical to address this allegedly insufficient information and for performing any TSCA section 6 risk evaluation of TBBPA, and they request EPA to not commence the risk evaluation for TBBPA until data generated to comply with the section 4 test order requested by the petitioners have been received by EPA.

    IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition A. What was EPA's response?

    After careful consideration, EPA has denied the petition. A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of two letters to the signatory petitioners from Earthjustice and Natural Resources Defense Council (Ref. 11), is available in the docket for this TSCA section 21 petition.

    B. Background Considerations for the Petition

    EPA published a Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment for TBBPA in August 2015 (Ref. 2). As stated on EPA's Web site titled “Assessments for TSCA Work Plan Chemicals” (Ref. 12), “As a first step in evaluating TSCA Work Plan Chemicals, EPA performs problem formulation to determine if available data and current assessment approaches and tools will support the assessments.” During development of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document for TBBPA, EPA followed an approach developed for assessing chemicals under TSCA as it existed at that time.

    Under TSCA prior to the June amendments, EPA performed risk assessments on individual uses, hazards, and exposure pathways. The approach taken during the TSCA Work Plan assessment effort was to focus risk assessments on those conditions of use that were most likely to pose concern, and for which EPA identified the most robust readily available, existing, empirical data, located using targeted literature searches, although modeling approaches and alternative types of data were also considered. EPA relied heavily on previously conducted assessments by other authoritative bodies and well-established conventional risk assessment methodologies in developing the Problem Formulation documents. Although EPA identified existing data and presented them in the problem formulations, EPA did not necessarily undertake a comprehensive search of available data or articulate a range of scientifically supportable approaches that might be used to perform risk assessment for various uses, hazards, and exposure pathways in the absence of directly applicable, empirical data prior to seeking public input. Rather, EPA generally elected to focus its attention on the uses, hazards, and exposure pathways that appeared to be of greatest concern and for which the most extensive relevant data had been identified. (Ref. 2).

    As EPA explains on its Web site, “Based on on-going experience in conducting TSCA Work Plan Chemical assessments and stakeholder feedback, starting in 2015 EPA will publish a problem formulation for each TSCA Work Plan assessment as a stand-alone document to facilitate public and stakeholder comment and input prior to conducting further risk analysis. Commensurate with release of a problem formulation document, EPA will open a public docket for receiving comments, data or information from interested stakeholders. EPA believes publishing problem formulations for TSCA Work Plan assessments will increase transparency of EPA's thinking and analysis process, provide opportunity for public/stakeholders to comment on EPA approach and provide additional information/data to supplement or refine assessment approach prior to EPA conducting detailed risk analysis and risk characterization.” (Ref. 12).

    EPA's 2015 Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment for TBBPA does not constitute a full risk assessment for TBBPA, nor does it purport to be a final analysis plan for performing a risk assessment or to present the results of a comprehensive search for available data or approaches for conducting risk assessments. Rather, it is a preliminary step in the risk assessment process, which EPA desired to publish to provide transparency and the opportunity for public input. EPA received comments from Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council and others during the public comment period, which ended in November 2015 (Ref. 13). After the public comment period, EPA was in the process of considering this input in refining the analysis plan and further data collection for conducting a risk assessment for TBBPA.

    On June 22, 2016, Congress passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. EPA has interpreted the amended TSCA as requiring that forthcoming risk evaluations encompass all manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal activities that the Administrator determines are intended, known, or reasonably foreseen (Ref. 14). This interpretation, encompassing “conditions of use” as defined by TSCA section 3(4), has prompted EPA to re-visit the scoping and problem formulation for risk assessments under TSCA. Other provisions included in the amended TSCA, including section 4(h) regarding alternative testing methods, have also prompted EPA to evolve its approach to scoping and conducting risk assessments. The requirement to consider all conditions of use in risk evaluations—and to do so during the three to three and a half years allotted in the statute—has led EPA to more fully evaluate the range of data sources and technically sound approaches for conducting risk evaluations. Thus, a policy decision articulated in a problem formulation under the pre-amendment TSCA not to proceed with risk assessment for a particular use, hazard, or exposure pathway does not necessarily indicate at this time that EPA will need to require testing in order to proceed to risk evaluation. Rather, such a decision indicates an area in which EPA will need to further evaluate the range of potential approaches—including generation of additional test data—for proceeding to risk evaluation. EPA is actively developing and evolving approaches for implementing the new provisions in amended TSCA. These approaches are expected to address many, if not all, of the data needs asserted in the petition. Whereas under the Work Plan assessment effort, EPA sometimes opted not to include conditions of use for which data were limited or lacking, under section 6 of amended TSCA, EPA will evaluate all conditions of use and will apply a broad range of scientifically defensible approaches—using data, predictive models, or other methods—that are appropriate and consistent with the provisions of TSCA section 26, to characterize risk and enable the Administrator to make a determination of whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk.

    C. What was EPA's reason for this response?

    For the purpose of making its decision on the response to the petition, EPA evaluated the information presented or referenced in the petition and its authority and requirements under TSCA sections 4 and 21. EPA also evaluated relevant information that was available to EPA during the 90-day petition review period that may have not been available or identified during the development of EPA's TBBPA Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2).

    EPA agrees that the manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal of TBBPA may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment under TSCA section 4(a)(1)(A). EPA also agrees that the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment was not comprehensive in scope with regard to the conditions of use of TBBPA, exposure pathways/routes, or potentially exposed populations. However, the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment was not designed to be comprehensive. Rather, the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment was developed under EPA's then-existing process, as explained previously. It was a fit-for-purpose document to meet a TSCA Work Plan (i.e., pre-Lautenberg Act) need. Going forward under TSCA, as amended, EPA will conform its analyses to TSCA, as amended. EPA has explained elsewhere how the Agency proposes to conduct prioritization and risk evaluation going forward (Refs. 15 and 16). However, EPA does not find that the petitioners have demonstrated, for each exposure pathway and hazard endpoint presented in the petition, that the existing information and experience available to EPA are insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the effects on health or the environment from “manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing, use, or disposal” of TBBPA (or any combination of such activities) nor that the specific testing they have identified is necessary to develop such information.

    The discussion that follows provides the reasons for EPA's decision to deny the petition based on the finding for each requested test that the information on the individual exposure pathways and hazard endpoints identified by the petitioners does not demonstrate that there is insufficient information upon which the effects of TBBPA can reasonably be determined or predicted or that the requested testing is necessary to develop additional information. The sequence of EPA's responses follows the sequence in which requested testing was presented in the petition (Ref. 1).

    1. Dermal and Inhalation Exposure Toxicity. a. Dermal toxicity. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects to health from dermal exposure to TBBPA. Therefore, the toxicokinetics test (Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) Test Guideline 417) (Ref. 17) via the dermal route and the skin absorption: In vivo test (OECD Test Guideline 427) (Ref. 18), requested by the petitioners, are not needed. The information already available includes oral toxicity studies and oral toxicokinetic studies identified in EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2) and the dermal toxicokinetics study identified by the petitioners (Ref. 19). These available studies are sufficient to reasonably determine the internal doses of TBBPA for purposes of route-to-route (oral to dermal) extrapolation. The 2016 Yu et al. study, cited in the petition (Ref. 1), characterizes absorption and elimination, while distribution and metabolism characterization is available from studies using intravenous dosing (Ref. 20). Furthermore, the available studies do not indicate differential distribution, metabolism, and elimination specific to skin. Therefore, the dermal toxicokinetics study requested by the petitioners is not needed to inform or refine evaluation of dermal exposures.

    b. Inhalation toxicity. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects to health from inhalation exposure to TBBPA. Therefore, the toxicokinetics test (OECD Test Guideline 417) (Ref. 17) via the inhalation route, requested by the petitioners, is not needed. As described in EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2), EPA will use an alternative approach to evaluate risks from inhalation exposure to TBBPA. Because TBBPA is a solid, it may be reasonably predicted that particulates in the air are the primary form of TBBPA that would be inhaled. TBBPA particles in air that are inhaled are subsequently swallowed via the mucociliary escalator (Ref. 21). Once the particles are in the gastrointestinal tract, absorption can reasonably be assumed to be the same as in the oral toxicity studies and hence, oral toxicity studies can be used for risk assessment. Information is also available to estimate bioaccessibility of TBBPA from dust using an extraction test with an in vitro colon (Ref. 22). This additional information could also be considered when evaluating risks from TBBPA via the oral route. This approach would not require conducting the requested toxicokinetics test (Ref. 17).

    Although a small percent of TBBPA particles may be in the respirable range and may be absorbed directly through the lungs, existing tests show that no systemic effects were observed in a 14-day inhalation toxicity study (Ref. 23). Therefore, EPA considers that assuming all inhaled particles are eventually swallowed and using existing oral toxicity data should not underestimate effects from inhaling TBBPA particles and therefore would reasonably predict such effects.

    Furthermore, EPA's use of available existing toxicity information reduces the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances in a manner consistent with provisions described in TSCA section 4(h).

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects to the environment, specifically, toxicity to plants exposed to TBBPA via the air. Therefore, the early seedling growth toxicity test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4230) (Ref. 24), requested by the petitioners, is not needed. As previously mentioned, because TBBPA is a solid, it may be reasonably predicted that particulates in the air are the primary form of TBBPA that would exist in air. Furthermore, as stated on page 88 of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2), “[u]ltimately air releases of TBBPA would be expected to undergo deposition to terrestrial and aquatic environments . . .” and “TBBPA tends to partition to soil and sediment . . .”. These fate pathways for TBBPA are also shown in Figure 2-1 of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2). Hence, exposure of plants to TBBPA is expected to occur primarily via soil and sediments after deposition from air, which is why EPA excluded this pathway from further assessment (Ref. 2, page 42), although EPA in the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document mistakenly mentioned plants in another sentence addressing “[e]xposure via directly inhaling [emphasis added] TBBPA,” even though direct inhalation is not applicable to plants and thereby may have caused potential confusion to readers. If toxicity of TBBPA to plants were to be included in an assessment, toxicity data following exposure via soil and/or sediment exposures, not air, would be the scientifically relevant data needed. To this end, as described in EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2), existing data and information on phytotoxicity of TBBPA to six plant species is available (Ref. 25). EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2) included references for and a brief description of the existing plant toxicity data (page 105). While assessment of soil-dwelling organisms is included in EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2), as depicted in Figure 2-1 and described on page 40, EPA indicated that the environmental risk assessment for the soil exposure pathway would be based on concentrations of concern derived from data for soil invertebrates (Ref. 2; Figure 2-1; Table 2-6; Page 40). Support for EPA's selection of using species that are expected to be more sensitive to potential effects of TBBPA in soil is provided in EPA's summary of plant toxicity data, which states “. . . TBBPA is two to three orders of magnitude less toxic to terrestrial plants than to soil-dwelling organisms” (Ref. 2; Table_Apx F-2 and text on page 106).

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict toxicity of TBBPA to avian species. Hence, inhalation toxicokinetic studies (OECD Test Guideline 417) (Ref. 17) and the acute inhalation toxicity study (OCSPP Test Guideline 870.1300) (Ref. 26) modified for birds, requested by the petitioners, are not needed. Although the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document states, “Exposure via directly inhaling TBBPA will not be assessed because no information is available on the toxicity of tetrabromobisphenol A to plants and other wildlife organisms (e.g., birds) exposed via the air.” (Ref. 2; page 42), EPA's primary rationale for not including further elaboration of inhalation risks to avian species, as discussed in the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2; page 32 and Appendix F) is TBBPA's low avian toxicity demonstrated in existing studies.

    Halldin et al., 2001 and Berg et al., 2001 (Refs. 27 and 28) indicate no effects to egg-laying female quail nor embryos (except at very high doses). The Halldin et al. (Ref. 27) study also included toxicokinetic data indicating that TBBPA is rapidly metabolized and excreted in birds (both embryos and egg-laying females). In these studies, TBBPA was delivered by intravenous injection into females and direct injection into eggs. This dosing regimen assures full (100%) delivery of the dose into the animal, which does not occur in nature, and thus provides the most sensitive means to detect the toxicity of the TBBPA. Other routes of exposure (i.e., oral, inhalation, dermal) result in incomplete absorption limiting the systematic availability of TBBPA compared to the intravenous injection (i.e., less than 100% delivered dose). Hence, intravenous toxicity test designs provide a good understanding of the potential toxicity (or lack thereof) of a chemical. In addition to the low avian toxicity of TBBPA, demonstrated via intravenous injection, inhalation is not expected to be a substantial exposure pathway to wildlife for TBBPA (Refs. 29 and 30). The predominant route of exposure to terrestrial wildlife for a chemical with physical-chemical properties (i.e., Log KOW = 5.90; water solubility = 4.16 mg/L) and partitioning parameters (i.e., low mobility in soil) such as TBBPA is not expected to be via inhalation, but rather through ingestion because the TBBPA will predominantly partition to soils and sediments if/when released to the environment. The physical-chemical properties of TBBPA also indicate that the fate of TBBPA into water would result in preferential partitioning into sediments and biota (fish or other aquatic organism). Available monitoring data support this conclusion, with higher concentrations of TBBPA in soil and fish relative to concentrations in air.

    Hence, additional toxicokinetic studies by the inhalation route is not needed to conduct a reasoned determination or prediction of TBBPA risk to birds.

    Furthermore, EPA's use of available existing toxicity information reduces the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances in a manner consistent with provisions described in TSCA section 4(h).

    2. Diet and Drinking Water Exposures. a. Diet. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects from exposure to TBBPA via diet. Testing of food products for TBBPA contamination, such as the plant uptake and translocation test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4800) (Ref. 31) and modified methods for TBBPA using the Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) Drug & Chemical Residues Methods (Ref. 32), requested by the petitioners, is not necessary because existing data are available to address this exposure pathway.

    While a plant uptake study combined with soil concentrations could be used to estimate dietary exposures from plants, chemicals with low water solubility and higher log KOW values similar to TBBPA are less likely to bioaccumulate in plants compared to other foods, such as meats, fish and dairy products (Ref. 33). Hence, other food items, such as meats, fish and dairy products would be expected to be primary contributors to dietary exposures. Available market basket surveys for TBBPA support this, with most samples comprised of lipid-rich food groups (Ref. 34). There were 465 food samples collected in Europe between 2003 and 2010. Most of these were comprised of lipid-rich food groups; however, some vegetable and grain based food groups were sampled. All samples from this study were below the level of quantification, which was approximately <1 ng/g wet weight, although this varied by food group (Ref. 35). To address dietary exposure from TBBPA, EPA could use a combination of approaches. First, there are existing plant uptake studies available that could be used to estimate TBBPA concentrations in plants from modeled or measured near-facility soil concentrations (Refs. 36 and 37). These studies are not cited in the petition. This approach is supported by a study, that EPA identified since the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document was published, that compared a wide variety of plant uptake studies with available models that estimate soil to plant uptake (Ref. 38). Any modeled estimate can be compared to available measured data and a range of values informed by both approaches could be derived. EPA could model soil concentrations from TRI data; these concentrations along with available physical-chemical properties can be used to reasonably estimate plant concentrations and associated dietary exposures. There is also an existing study that quantified soil and plant TBBPA concentrations near a facility (Ref. 39). This data can be used to supplement and/or evaluate the modeling approach. Because existing approaches exist for estimating plant concentrations of TBBPA (modeling and market basket data), the plant uptake and translocation test (Ref. 31) is not necessary.

    EPA recognizes that dietary exposures come from a wide variety of sources, not just plants. Market basket surveys provide food concentrations, which can be used to estimate dietary exposure. There are market basket surveys from other countries that measured TBBPA in various food products (Refs. 40 to 42). Other studies are available that provide data on TBBPA concentrations in breast milk or edible fish (Refs. 43 to 48). Fish concentrations can also be estimated from combining modeled or measured surface water concentrations with bioaccumulation/bioconcentration factors (BAF/BCF). Ingestion from other dietary sources, in addition to fish, shellfish, and breast milk (dairy, meat, fruits and vegetables and grains), can be estimated individually and in total using existing data. It is expected that ingestion of foods with higher lipid content, such as fish and milk, will contribute more to dietary exposure (Ref. 49) than other foods, such as plants. Levels may vary based on proximity to point sources when compared to levels detected in market basket surveys, and this can be considered in developing exposure scenarios and/or background estimates.

    b. Drinking Water. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects from exposure to TBBPA via drinking water. Sampling of waters in the vicinity of representative manufacturing and processing facilities known to discharge TBBPA, requested by the petitioners, is not necessary because an existing approach is available to address this exposure pathway.

    EPA can use release data collected under EPA's TRI program to characterize TBBPA concentrations in surface water near TBBPA manufacturing and processing facilities.

    In addition, while there are no data on TBBPA concentrations in finished drinking water, EPA can use surface water monitoring data as a surrogate for finished drinking water to assess potential risks posed by drinking TBBPA-contaminated water. EPA's Office of Water routinely derives Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (Ref. 50) using the assumption that people may ingest surface water as a drinking water source over a lifetime. There are existing data on TBBPA concentrations in surface water to conduct a drinking water exposure assessment using surface water as a surrogate (Refs. 51 to 53).

    EPA believes these approaches are adequate, and likely conservative, to assess potential exposures to drinking water. First, the physical-chemical and fate properties of TBBPA, such as high sorption, low water solubility, and high KOC indicate that concentrations of TBBPA in drinking water would be expected to be low prior to treatment. When sediment monitoring data is used with assumptions about KOC, organic content, and density of water and sediment, surface water concentrations can be estimated to be generally low, below the highest levels reported in surface water (Refs. 54 to 56). This is supported by existing surface water monitoring data indicating the highest concentration of TBBPA in surface water is 4.87 ug/L with most data below 1 ug/L (Refs. 57 and 58). These same chemical and fate properties would indicate that drinking water treatment processes would further reduce TBBPA concentrations in finished drinking water. Overall, the contribution to exposure to TBBPA via drinking water is expected to be minimal.

    3. Exposure from Manufacturing and Processing. a. Communities. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict exposure to TBBPA to communities near manufacturing and processing facilities. Air sampling, using methods, such as EPA Air Method Toxic Organics-9A (TO-9A, Determination Of Polychlorinated, Polybrominated And Brominated/Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins And Dibenzofurans In Ambient Air) (Ref. 60), sampling of soils, and sampling of waters in the vicinity of representative manufacturing and processing facilities known to discharge TBBPA, as requested by the petitioners, is not necessary because EPA could use an alternative approach to evaluate exposure to TBBPA to communities near manufacturing and processing facilities. EPA could use release data collected under EPA's TRI program and a Gaussian dispersion model, such as AERMOD, to quantify air concentrations and air deposition to soil, to water bodies and to sediments near manufacturing and processing facilities. AERMOD is an EPA model that has been extensively reviewed and validated based on comparisons with monitoring data (Ref. 60). Variability and uncertainty associated with variable emission rates and degradation over time can also be characterized using modeling approaches whereas one-time or limited sampling cannot provide temporal characterizations. In addition, EPA can use monitoring data from other countries as surrogate “near-facility” monitoring data along with modeled estimates. However, the petition does not address this possibility, let alone explain why a testing order under section 4 would be necessary on this point. There are several references with sampling locations near facilities that can be considered, many of which were cited in the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2). EPA considers this approach to be reasonable to determine exposure to communities near manufacturing or processing facilities, but may decide to pursue targeted sampling in the future near manufacturing and processing facilities to reduce uncertainty.

    b. Workers. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict exposure to TBBPA to workers in manufacturing and processing facilities.

    Since publication of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document, EPA identified exposure monitoring data for Europe, China and the United States for several industries (the manufacture of epoxy resins and laminates; manufacture of printed circuit boards; and compounding of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin) (Refs. 61 to 66).

    As discussed previously, EPA is actively developing or evolving approaches for implementing the new provisions in amended TSCA. One such approach is to perform systematic literature reviews to identify and/or develop additional available data and modeling approaches for estimating worker inhalation exposure. EPA may also assess exposure concentration in the case of conversion of compounded ABS resin to finished products based on available monitoring data for other industries, such as manufacture of epoxy resins and laminates and manufacture of printed circuit boards. Furthermore, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has initiated a study titled: “Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Flame Retardants” that aims to quantify, characterize occupational exposure (inhalation, ingestion, or dermal) among workers, and to compare workers' exposures to those of the general population (Ref. 67). Data generated from the NIOSH study is expected to inform occupational exposures and will be considered in an occupational assessment of TBBPA. However, the petition fails to explain how it considered these points or why a testing order under section 4 would be necessary for additional information.

    EPA considers the approach considered in the previous paragraph to be reasonable to determine exposure to workers in manufacturing and processing facilities, but may decide to pursue targeted sampling in the future near manufacturing and processing facilities to supplement or refine these approaches.

    Dust. EPA believes the approaches described earlier in this unit are sufficient to characterize exposures to workers at manufacturing or processing facilities from external doses/concentrations. Sampling of settled dust (surface wipe and bulk sampling) using the OSHA Technical Manual (Ref. 68), as specifically requested by the petitioners, is not needed. Presence of TBBPA in settled dust may indicate additional dermal and ingestion exposures are possible. However, surface wipe sampling does not provide a direct estimate of dermal or ingestion exposure. Surface wipe sampling would need to be combined with information on transfer efficiency between the surface, hands, and objects, as well as the number of events to estimate exposures from ingestion (Ref. 69). EPA notes that in the NIOSH study that is in progress surface wipe sampling is not included, which provides support for the conclusion that settled dust is not a customary measure for occupational exposure. EPA would, however, use any information generated from the NIOSH study considered relevant for this exposure pathway.

    Biomonitoring. EPA believes the approaches described previously are sufficient to characterize exposures to workers at manufacturing or processing facilities from external doses/concentrations. Therefore, the biomonitoring data collected following the protocols of the current NIOSH study, as requested by the petitioners, is not needed. EPA would, however, consider any data or information generated from the NIOSH study deemed to be relevant and applicable for discerning exposures from any/all exposure routes.

    4. Exposure from recycling. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict communities specifically located at or near and workers in facilities that recycle TBBPA-containing products. In the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2), EPA identified three monitoring studies that describe concentrations of TBBPA in soil, sediment, and sludge near manufacturing and recycling facilities (Refs. 71, 72, 76). Since publication of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2), EPA has identified four monitoring studies that describe concentrations of TBBPA in soil, sediment, indoor and outdoor dust from sampling locations in and near e-waste recycling facilities in other countries (Refs. 70, 73 to 75). These data may be useful for estimating exposures at or near U.S. recycling facilities.

    However, EPA intends to further assess how comparable the nature and magnitude of these types of facilities and handling of TBBPA-containing products are to facilities within the U.S. EPA may collect available information related to estimating potential extent and magnitude of exposure. For example, the following could inform development of exposure scenarios for recycling facilities within the United States:

    a. The number and location of recycling facilities in the United States,

    b. the types and volumes of products that are accepted by these sites, and

    c. the recycling and disposal methods employed at these facilities.

    With such data or information, the recycling processes used in the U.S. could be compared with the processes used in the studies characterizing the foreign facilities. However, the petition does not address this possibility, let alone explain why a testing order under section 4 would be necessary on this point. If the processes are similar, EPA could extrapolate from foreign facilities to U.S. facilities. If EPA determines these previously indicated approaches are not reasonable to determine exposures, then sampling of soils, sediments and waters in the vicinity of facilities and air to which workers may be exposed at facilities known to recycle TBBPA-containing products, as requested by the petitioners, may become necessary. EPA also notes that the NIOSH study, “Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Flame Retardants,” (Ref. 67) may inform occupational exposures from recycling facilities and will be considered in an occupational assessment of TBBPA. EPA also notes that the settled dust sampling and biomonitoring data, as requested by the petitioners, may not be the most appropriate data to collect for the reasons provided previously in Unit IV.C.3.b., but that EPA would consider any data or information generated from the NIOSH study deemed to be relevant and applicable for discerning exposures from any/all exposure routes.

    5. Exposure from disposal. a. Landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and sewage sludge. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict movement of TBBPA from landfills in soil columns. Leaching studies (OCSPP Testing Guideline 835.1240) (Ref. 77), requested by the petitioners, are not necessary because an existing approach is available to address this fate pathway. Studies measuring the sorption of TBBPA to soil, sand columns, and sediment are available as discussed in Appendix C of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2). Larsen et al. (2001) reported negligible leaching potential of TBBPA applied to soil and sand columns. (Ref. 78). The adsorption of TBBPA to sediment has been reported (Ref. 79) and suggest low mobility in soil and partitioning to sediments. Data from these existing studies can also serve as input to soil transport models to estimate mobility.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict transformation processes of TBBPA, which would be episodically and/or continuously released to wastewater. The simulation tests to assess the primary and ultimate biodegradability of chemicals discharged to wastewater (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3280) (Ref. 80), requested by the petitioners, is not needed because primary degradation and major transformation products can be determined from existing studies on the ultimate biodegradability of TBBPA in aerobic and anaerobic sludge. One of the studies (Ref. 81) was discussed in Appendix C of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment (Ref. 2). Two additional studies (Refs. 82 and 83) were identified after publication of EPA's document (Ref. 2). Li, et al. (2015) (Ref. 82) studied TBBPA transformation in nitrifying activated sludge (NAS). TBBPA transformation was accompanied by mineralization. Twelve metabolites, including those with single benzene ring, O-methyl TBBPA ether, and nitro compounds, were identified during the study. Potvin et al. (2012) (Ref. 83) measured the removal of TBBPA from influent to conventional activated sludge, submerged membrane and membrane aerated biofilm reactors. Removal of TBBPA from these wastewater treatment systems was found to be due to a combination of adsorption and biological degradation. Nyholm, et al. 2010 (Ref. 81) reported transformation as biodegradation half-lives for TBPPA in aerobic activated sludge, aerobic digested sludge, and anaerobic activated sludge amended soils.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict effects from dietary exposure to crops where TBBPA contaminated sewage sludge is applied. A plant uptake and translocation test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4800) (Ref. 31), requested by the petitioners, is not necessary because existing data are available to address this fate pathway. As explained in the dietary exposure section, there are existing plant uptake studies available (Refs. 36 and 37). These data are also available to be used to estimate plant concentrations of agricultural crops where TBBPA-containing sewage sludge is applied. While a plant uptake study combined with sewage sludge concentrations could be used to estimate dietary exposures from plants, chemicals with low water solubility and higher log KOW values similar to TBBPA, are less likely to bioaccumulate in plants compared to other foods, such as meats, fish and dairy products (Ref. 33). Hence, other food items, such as meats, fish and dairy products, would be expected to be primary contributors to dietary exposures. Available market basket surveys for TBBPA support this, with most samples comprised of lipid-rich food groups (Ref. 34). To address dietary exposure from TBBPA, EPA could use a combination of approaches as described in the dietary exposure section. EPA believes this approach can provide a reasonable estimate of plant concentrations of agricultural crops grown where TBBPA-containing sewage sludge was applied.

    b. Incineration. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict communities specifically located near facilities that incinerate TBBPA or TBBPA-containing products.

    Electronic waste can be sent to waste-to-energy incinerators (Ref. 84). EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment for TBBPA (Ref. 2) included a study that measured TBBPA emissions (0.008 ng/L to air) from a mixed household and commercial waste incinerator in Japan (Ref. 85). These data may be useful for estimating exposures at or near U.S. facilities that incinerate TBBPA or TBBPA-containing products.

    EPA intends to further assess these facilities and could use an approach that combines existing data to estimate the amount of combustion products at incineration facilities that could have formed from incinerating products that contain TBBPA. Such an approach could combine information on:

    i. The types of by-products using data from EU (2006) (Ref. 62) and U.S. EPA (Ref. 87);

    ii. information regarding types of consumer waste that contains TBBPA and may be sent to incinerators;

    iii. information on the concentrations of TBBPA in various types of consumer waste; some of these data are available (Refs. 86 to 91);

    iv. Toxics Release Inventory data on emissions of the dioxin, furan and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) by-products from incinerators.

    The emissions of dioxins, furans and PAHs could then be modeled using EPA's AERMOD air dispersion model (Ref. 60) and the amount of these by-products that might be attributed to TBBPA could be determined.

    Another approach that EPA could take is to estimate exposures near facilities by grouping all near-facility data for a variety of facilities (manufacturing, processing, e-waste, disposal) to estimate a generic “near-facility” exposure. By estimating exposure in this manner, EPA could take advantage of the larger number of monitoring studies or modeled estimates.

    However, EPA intends to further assess how comparable locations around incineration sites would be to those around manufacturing, processing, e-waste, and other disposal facilities. There are factors that may either increase and decrease emissions and potential concentrations around these facilities. For example, elevated temperatures are likely to eliminate some amount of possible TBBPA and its combustion products which could reduce overall exposures. The waste stream and content of TBBPA in materials as part of this waste stream are likely to be highly variable and could result in emissions that are higher or lower than those in manufacturing and processing facilities. Comparison of facility specific information could inform which categories of incineration may be sufficiently different from manufacturing and processing facilities to potentially warrant environmental sampling.

    Therefore, to complement the existing data, EPA could collect available information related to estimating potential extent and magnitude of exposure (for example, the number and location of incineration facilities in the U.S. and the types and volumes of products that are accepted by these sites). Waste disposal by incineration as used in the United States could be then compared with the processes used in the studies assessing the foreign facilities. However, the petition does not address this possibility, let alone explain why a testing order under section 4 would be necessary on this point. If the processes are similar, EPA could extrapolate from foreign facilities to U.S. facilities. If EPA determines these previously indicated approaches are not reasonable to determine exposures, then sampling of soils, sediments and waters in the vicinity of facilities and air to which workers may be exposed at facilities known to incinerate TBBPA or TBBPA-containing products, as requested by the petitioners, may be necessary, but could be more strategic and better targeted when based on deliberate evaluation of available existing data and information.

    6. Exposure to degradation by-products. a. Degradation in water or soil. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict degradation of TBBPA in water by direct photolysis. Studies identifying photodegradation products of TBBPA formed by direct photolysis in water under laboratory conditions (Ref. 92) were identified after the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document was published. Therefore, the photodegradation in water test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.2240) (Ref. 93), requested by the petitioners, is not needed.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict reactions resulting from chemical or electronic excitation transfer from light-absorbing humic species rather than from direct sunlight for TBBPA. A study identifying indirect photodegradation products of TBBPA formed by indirect photolysis in water under laboratory conditions (Ref. 94) was identified after the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document was published. Therefore, the indirect photolysis in water test (OCSPP 835.5270) (Ref. 95), requested by the petitioners, is not needed.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict degradation of TBBPA in soil by photolysis. Photolysis of TBBPA deposited on soil or applied to soil with sludge is a possible fate pathway, which could involve different pathways and mechanisms other than photolysis in water. Existing aqueous photolysis studies and/or predictive models can be used to reasonably predict the degradation products of TBBPA. Environmental transport and exposure modeling could be conducted using available measured or estimated physical-chemical properties to estimate exposure of degradation products. This approach has been used by others (Ref. 96) to estimate PBT properties for degradation products. Therefore, the photodegradation in soil test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.2410) (Ref. 97), requested by the petitioners, is not needed.

    b. Microbial degradation. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict microbial degradation of TBBPA in soil in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. EPA has identified existing studies/data describing aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation pathways of TBBPA in both soil samples potentially pre-exposed and not pre-exposed to TBBPA. Some studies are discussed in Appendix C of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Refs. 81, 98 and 99). EPA identified two additional studies after publication of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document that also address this endpoint (Refs. 82 and 100). These studies allow EPA to reasonably determine transformation products and predict relative rates from aerobic and anaerobic microbial degradation in soil. Therefore, the aerobic and anaerobic transformation in soil test (OECD Test Guideline 307) (Ref. 101) and terrestrial soil-core microcosm test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4900) (Ref. 102), requested by the petitioner, are not needed.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict aerobic aquatic biodegradation of TBBPA. Studies are available (Refs. 103 and 104) to reasonably determine aerobic aquatic biodegradation pathways and products as discussed in Appendix C of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2). Therefore, the aerobic mineralization in surface water-simulation biodegradation test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.3190) (Ref. 105), requested by the petitioner, is not needed.

    As noted in the exposure from disposal discussion, the petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict degradation processes of TBBPA, which would be episodically and/or continuously released to wastewater. The simulation tests to assess the primary and ultimate biodegradability of chemicals discharged to wastewater (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3280) (Ref. 80), which the petitioner cited in the discussion about exposure to degradation by-products, is not needed.

    c. Combustion products. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict potential combustion products of TBBPA. The reference to combustion testing cited by the petitioners and others is available (Refs. 62 and 106). However, knowledge of the types and volumes of TBBPA-containing products is needed to use this data to estimate potential exposures to combustion products. As stated in the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2; page 91), “. . . contribution of TBBPA to combustion byproducts is not possible to determine.” However, EPA could acquire this information from recycling and incineration facilities using approaches described in Units IV.C.4. and IV.C.5.b. The petition does not address this possibility, let alone explain why a testing order under section 4 would be necessary on this point.

    d. Toxicity of degradation products. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict characterization of TBBPA degradation products, and, as stated in Units IV.C.5.a, IV.C.6.a, and IV.C.6.b., EPA has an understanding of the products potentially formed from TBBPA degradation (e.g., tri-, di-, and monobromobisphenol A, bisphenol A, TBBPA—bis(methyl ether), isopropyl dibromophenols). EPA can use predictive models (e.g., EPA's EPISuite models (Ref. 107) to estimate the key physical-chemical properties of these degradants. EPISuite models have been validated and peer reviewed, and TBBPA degradates are chemicals for which EPISuite models are suitable for estimating (i.e., are within applicability domains of EPISuite models). EPISuite has been used for estimating chemical properties in risk assessments conducted by the USEPA, the EU, and Canada. Therefore, the use of the EPA series 830 Group B testing guidelines (Ref. 108), requested by the petitioners, is not needed.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict toxicity effects of TBBPA degradation products to mammals and birds. The petition did not reflect a comprehensive search and review for existing toxicity data on potential degradation products, and EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2) did not purport to represent such a comprehensive search for degradation products. To address the need for mammal or avian toxicity under EPA's current approach, EPA would conduct a comprehensive literature review to identify existing data for these chemicals or for analogs. Following identification and review of existing data, if EPA deemed specific testing necessary to fill identified data gaps, EPA would consider testing according to EPA series 850 Ecological Effects Test Guidelines (Ref. 109), EPA series 870 Health Effects Test Guidelines (Ref. 110), or appropriate OECD Guidelines.

    The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict the toxicity effects of TBBPA degradation products to aquatic organisms. The petition did not reflect a comprehensive search and review for existing toxicity data on potential degradation products, and EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2) did not purport to represent such a comprehensive search. To address the need for aquatic toxicity under EPA's current approach, EPA would conduct a comprehensive literature review to identify existing data for these chemicals or for analogs. EPA also believes there are alternative approaches available to EPA regarding ecological effects of TBBPA degradation products on aquatic organisms. EPA could use EPA's ECOSAR (Ref. 111) to estimate the aquatic toxicity of these degradants. ECOSAR is an expert system and collection of models (i.e., Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships) that estimate toxicity from structure and physical-chemical properties of a chemical. The models incorporated into ECOSAR have been validated and peer reviewed. ECOSAR models are suitable for estimating toxicity of potential TBBPA degradates (i.e., TBBPA degradation product chemicals are within the applicability domains of ECOSAR models). Therefore, the use of the EPA series 850 testing guidelines (Ref. 109), requested by the petitioners, is not needed for aquatic organisms.

    Furthermore, EPA's use of available existing toxicity information and modeling approaches reduces the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances in a manner consistent with provisions described in TSCA section 4(h).

    7. Hazard endpoints. a. Reproductive toxicity, developmental toxicity and neurotoxicity. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict reproductive, developmental and neurotoxicity of TBBPA. Therefore, the reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD Test Guideline 421) (Ref. 112), NTP's Modified One-Generation Reproduction Study (Ref. 113) and the complementing Developmental Neurotoxicity Study (OECD Test Guideline 426) (Ref. 114), requested by the petitioners, are not necessary. EPA has identified 15 reproductive/developmental toxicity tests conducted by the oral route of which some include evaluation of neurotoxicity endpoints. The available studies include: A one-generation reproduction toxicity test (Refs. 115 and 9); two 2-generation reproduction tests (Refs. 116 to 118); four prenatal developmental toxicity tests, including a developmental neurotoxicity test (Refs. 119 to 122); and six postnatal developmental toxicity tests, with some that also include a prenatal component (Refs. 123 to 128). All of these studies, except Hass et al. (2003) (Ref. 119) and Kim et al. (2015) (Ref. 126), were described in Appendix G of the published Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document for TBBPA (Ref. 2). These studies are either equivalent or superior to the methods used in the reproductive/developmental toxicity screening test (OECD Test Guideline 421) (Ref. 112) and the NTP Modified One-Generation Reproduction Study (Ref. 113).

    For developmental neurotoxicity, a study for this endpoint by the oral route is available (Ref. 119), and EPA would consider the results of this study when evaluating risks from TBBPA. Although the study was conducted when the Developmental Neurotoxicity Study OECD Test Guideline 426 (Ref. 114) was a draft guideline, the study is adequate for consideration as part of a weight-of-evidence analysis along with the results of a 2-generation reproduction toxicity study that included a neurotoxicity component (Ref. 121).

    Furthermore, EPA conducted an in-depth review of the existing dataset of reproductive and developmental toxicity studies identified, as well as additional animal and human data that evaluated neurotoxicity endpoints (Refs. 131 and 116) following the publication of the Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment document (Ref. 2) and determined that the developmental, reproductive and neurotoxicity endpoints are adequately addressed. Therefore, EPA could use this body of existing data in selecting studies for use in risk evaluation.

    Furthermore, EPA's use of available existing toxicity information reduces the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances in a manner consistent with provisions described in TSCA section 4(h).

    b. Amphibian endocrine system. The petition does not set forth facts demonstrating that there is insufficient information available to EPA to reasonably determine or predict adverse endocrine-related effects from exposure to TBBPA. Therefore, the larval amphibian growth and development assay (LAGDA) (OCSPP Test Guideline 890.2300) (Ref. 132) is not necessary. Data are available that address thyroid effects of TBBPA for both bioactivity and dose response (Refs. 57 and 133 to 139). These data include mixed results in amphibians and more consistent results in mammals indicating that changes in thyroid hormones are associated with developmental effects (specifically neurobehavioral effects). Given the weight-of-evidence, EPA does not believe that the LAGDA would significantly change this conclusion. Furthermore, EPA's use of this available existing toxicity information reduces the use of vertebrate animals in the testing of chemical substances in a manner consistent with provisions described in TSCA section 4(h).

    8. EPA's conclusions. EPA denied the request to issue an order under TSCA section 4 because the TSCA section 21 petition does not set forth sufficient facts for EPA to find that the information currently available to the Agency, including existing studies (identified prior to or after publication of EPA's Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment) on TBBPA and analogs, as well as alternate approaches for risk evaluation, is insufficient to permit a reasoned determination or prediction of the health or environmental effects of TBBPA at issue in the petition nor that the specific testing the petition identified is necessary to develop additional information, as elaborated throughout Unit IV of this notice.

    Furthermore, to the extent the petitioners request vertebrate testing, EPA emphasizes that future petitions should discuss why such testing is appropriate, considering the reduction of testing on vertebrates encouraged by section 4(h) of TSCA, as amended.

    V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Toxic-Free Future, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, BlueGreen Alliance, Environmental Health Strategy Center; Eve Gartner, Earthjustice; and Veena Singla, Natural Resources Defense Council to Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency. Re: Petition to Order Testing of Tetrabromobisphenol A (CAS No. 79-94-7) under Section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. December 13, 2016. 2. EPA. TSCA Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment Tetrabromobisphenol A and Related Chemicals Cluster Flame Retardants. 2015. 3. World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2014. (retrieved on February 4, 2017) https://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Publications/internrep/14-002.pdf. 4. Hamers, T. et al. In Vitro Profiling of the Endocrine-Disrupting Potency of Brominated Flame Retardants. Toxicological Sciences. 92:157. 2006. 5. Shi, H. et al. Teratogenic effects of tetrabromobisphenol A on Xenopus tropicalis embryos. Comp. Biochemistry & Physiology Part C: Toxicology & Pharmacology. 152:62‐68. 2010. 6. Zatecka, E. et al. Effect of tetrabrombisphenol A on induction of apoptosis in the testes and changes in expression of selected testicular genes in CD1 mice. Reproductive Toxicology. 35:32 2013. 7. Meerts, I. et al. In vitro estrogenicity of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, hydroxylated PDBEs, and polybrominated bisphenol A compounds. Environmental Health Perspective. 2001. 8. Pullen, S. et al. The flame retardants tetrabromobisphenol A and tetrabromobisphenol A/bisallylether suppress the induction of interleukin-2 receptor a chain (CD25) in murine splenocytes. Toxicology. 2003. 9. Van der Ven, L. et al. Endocrine effects of tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA) in Wistar rats as tested in a one-generation reproduction study and a subacute toxicity study. Toxicology. 2008. 10. EPA. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic (PBT) Chemicals; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds for Certain PBT Chemicals; Addition of Certain PBT Chemicals; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Reporting; Final Rule. Federal Register. (Oct. 29, 1999, 64 FR 58666) (FRL-6389-11). 11. EPA. Response to Petition to Order Testing of Tetrabromobisphenol A (CAS No. 79-94-7) Under Section 4(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act. 2017. 12. EPA. Assessments for TSCA Work Plan Chemicals. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/assessments-tsca-work-plan-chemicals (retrieved on February 21, 2017). 13. EPA. Work Plan Chemical Problem Formulation and Initial Assessment and Data Needs Assessment Documents for Flame Retardant Clusters. 2015. https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/tsca-work-plan-chemical-problem-formulation-and-2. 14. EPA. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 7565, January 19, 2017) (FRL-9957-75). https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0654-0001. 15. EPA. Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation under Toxic Substances Control Act; Proposed Rule. Federal Register (82 FR 4826, January 17, 2017) (FRL-9957-74). https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0636-0001. 16. EPA. Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0654. 2016.https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0654-0001. 17. OECD. Test No 417: Toxicokinetics. Guideline for the testing of chemicals. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2010. 18. OECD. Test No. 427: Skin Absorption: In Vivo Method. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2004. 19. Knudsen, G.A., J.M. Sanders, A.M. Sadik, and L.S. Birnbaum. Disposition and kinetics of tetrabromobisphenol A in female Wistar Han rats. Toxicology reports. 1, 214-223.2014. 20. Yu et al. Absorption and excretion of tetrabromobisphenol A in male Wistar rats following subchronic dermal exposure. Chemosphere. 146:189-194. 2016. 21. Klassen, C.D. Editor: Cassarett and Doull's Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill Medical Publishing Division. New York. 2008. 22. Abdallah, M. A-E., Tilston, E., Harrad, S. and C. Collins. In vitro assessment of the bioaccessibility of brominated flame retardants in indoor dust using a colon extended model of the human gastrointestinal tract. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 14:3276-3283. 2012. 23. IRDC (International Research and Development Corporation). 1975. Fourteen-Day Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats (Unpublished). (as cited in EC, 2006). 24. EPA. Early Seedling Growth Toxicity. OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4230. 1998. 25. ACC-BFRIP (American Chemistry Council Brominated Flame Retardant Industry Panel). Tetrabromobisphenol A: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test Substance on Seedling Emergence of Six Species of Plants. Study conducted by Wildlife International Ltd., March 5. Project No 439-102. 2002. 26. EPA. Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OCSPP Test Guideline 870.1300). 1998. 27. Halldin, K., C. Berg, A. Bergman, I. Brandt, and B. Brunstrom. Distribution of Bisphenol a and Tetrabromobisphenol a in Quail Eggs, Embryos and Laying Birds and Studies on Reproduction Variables in Adults Following in Ovo Exposure. Archives of Toxicology. 75, 597-603. 2001. 28. Berg, C., K. Halldin, and B. Brunstrom. Effects of Bisphenol a and Tetrabromobisphenol a on Sex Organ Development in Quail and Chicken Embryos. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20(12), 2836-2840. 2001. 29. Hudson, R.H., et al. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides to wildlife. Resource Publication. Washington, DC (1984). 30. Driver, C.J., Drown, D.B., Ligotke, M.W., Van Voris, P., McVeety, B.D. and Greenspan, B.J. Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicologic response of Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 10: 21-33. 1991. 31. EPA. Plant Uptake and Translocation (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4800). 1998. 32. FDA. DIOXINS: FDA Strategy for Monitoring, Method Development, and Reducing Human Exposure. 2002, Feb. 7. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/ChemicalContaminants/ucm077432.htm. 33. She, Ya-Zhe, et al. “Bioaccumulation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and several alternative halogenated flame retardants in a small herbivorous food chain.” Environmental pollution 174 (2013): 164-170. 34. Shi, Z.X., Wu, Y.N., Li, J.G., Zhao, Y.F., & Feng, J.F. (2009). Dietary exposure assessment of Chinese adults and nursing infants to tetrabromobisphenol-A and hexabromocyclododecanes: occurrence measurements in foods and human milk. Environmental science & technology, 43(12), 4314-4319. 35. EFSA 2011: Scientific Opinion on TBBPA and its derivatives in Food. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. 36. Li, Y., Q. Zhou, Y. Wang, and X. Xie. Fate of Tetrabromobisphenol a and Hexabromocyclododecane Brominated Flame Retardants in Soil and Uptake by Plants. Chemosphere. 82(2), 204-209. 2011. 37. Suominen, K., Verta, M., and Marttinen, S. Hazardous organic compounds in biogas plant end products—Soil burden and risk to food safety. Science of the Total Environment. 491:192-199. 2014. 38. Takaki K, Wade AJ, Collins CD. Assessment of plant uptake models used in exposure assessment tools for soils contaminated with organic pollutants. Environmental Science and Technology. 48(20):12073-82. 2014. 39. Wang, J., L. Liu, J. Wang, B. Pan, X. Fu, G. Zhang, L. Zhang, and K. Lin. Distribution of Metals and Brominated Flame Retardants (BFRs) in Sediments, Soils and Plants from an Informal E-Waste Dismantling Site, South China. Environmental Science Pollution Research International. 22(2), 1020-1033. 2015. 40. de Winter-Sorkina, R., Bakker, M.I., Van Donkersgoed, G., and Van Klaveren, J.D. Dietary intake of brominated flame retardants by the Dutch population. RIVM report 31305001/2003. RIVM—Netherlands Institute of Public Health and the Environment. 2003. 41. Murata, S., Nakagawa, R., Ashizuka, Y., Hori, T., Yasutake, D., Tobiishi, K., and Sasaki, K. Brominated flame retardants (HBCD, TBBPA and ΣPBDEs) in market basket food samples of Northern Kyushu district in Japan. Organohalogen Compounds. 69:1985-1988. (2007). 42. Nakao, T., Kakutani, H., Akiyama, E., and Ohta, S. Levels of tetrabromobisphenol A and its related compounds in infant foods in Japan. Organohalogen Compounds. 75:169-172. 2013. 43. Luigi, V., M. Giuseppe, and R. Claudio. Emerging and priority contaminants with endocrine active potentials in sediments and fish from the river Po (Italy). Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22(18):14050-14066. 2015. 44. He, M.-J., X.-J. Luo, L.-H. Yu, J.-P. Wu, S.-J. Chen, and B.-X. Mai. Diasteroisomer and Enantiomer-Specific Profiles of Hexabromocyclododecane and Tetrabromobisphenol a in an Aquatic Environment in a Highly Industrialized Area, South China: Vertical Profile, Phase Partition, and Bioaccumulation. Environmental Pollution. 179:105-110. 2013. 45. Ohta, S., T. Okumura, H. Nishimura, T. Nakao, A. Osamau, and H. Miyata. Characterization of Japanese Pollution by PBDEs, TBBPA, PCDDs/DFs, PBDDs/DFs and PXDDs/DFs Observed in the Long-Term Stock- Fishes and Sediments. Abstracts of the 3rd International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants. 2004. 46. Harrad, S., and Abdallah, M. A.-E. Concentrations of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Hexabromocyclododecanes and Tetrabromobisphenol-A in Breast Milk from United Kingdom Women Do Not Decrease Over Twelve Months of Lactation. Environmental Science and Technology. 49(23):13899-13903. 2015. 47. Lankova, D., O. Lacina, J. Pulkrabova, and J. Hajslova. The determination of perfluoroalkyl substances, brominated flame retardants and their metabolites in human breast milk and infant formula. Talanta. 117:318-325. 2013. 48. Shi, Z., Y. Jiao, Y. Hu, Z. Sun, X. Zhou, J. Feng, J. Li, and Y. Wu. Levels of tetrabromobisphenol A, hexabromocyclododecanes and polybrominated diphenyl ethers in human milk from the general population in Beijing, China. Science of the Total Environment. 452:10-18. 2013. 49. Shi, Z., Zhang, L., Li, J., Zhao, Y., Sun, Z., Zhou, X., and Wu, Y. Novel brominated flame retardants in food composites and human milk from the Chinese Total Diet Study in 2011: Concentrations and a dietary exposure assessment. Environment International. 96:82-90. 2016. 50. U.S. EPA (OW). Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. October. EPA-822-B-00-004.2000. 51. Quade, S.C. 2003. Determination of Tetrabromobisphenol a in Sediment and Sludge. (M.Sc.), University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. 52. Xiong, J., T. An, C. Zhang, and G. Li. 2015. Pollution Profiles and Risk Assessment of Pbdes and Phenolic Brominated Flame Retardants in Water Environments within a Typical Electronic Waste Dismantling Region. Environ Geochem Health, 37(3), 457-473. 53. Yang, S., S. Wang, H. Liu, and Z. Yan. 2012. Tetrabromobisphenol A: Tissue Distribution in Fish, and Seasonal Variation in Water and Sediment of Lake Chaohu, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 19(9), 4090-4096. 54. ECHA 2016. Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Chapter R.16: Environmental exposure assessment. 55. Guerra, P., E. Eljarrat, and D. Barcelo. 2010. Simultaneous Determination of Hexabromocyclododecane, Tetrabromobisphenol a, and Related Compounds in Sewage Sludge and Sediment Samples from Ebro River Basin (Spain). Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 397, 2817-2824. 56. Zhang, X.L., X.J. Luo, S.J. Chen, J.P. Wu, and B.X. Mai. 2009. Spatial Distribution and Vertical Profile of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, Tetrabromobisphenol a, and Decabromodiphenylethane in River Sediment from an Industrialized Region of South China. Environ Pollut, 157(6), 1917-1923. 57. Yang, S., Z. Yan, F. Xu, S. Wang, and F. Wu. Development of freshwater aquatic life criteria for tetrabromobisphenol A in China. Environmental Pollution. 169:59-63. 2012. 58. Harrad, S., M.A. Abdallah, N.L. Rose, S.D. Turner, and T.A. Davidson. Current-Use Brominated Flame Retardants in Water, Sediment, and Fish from English Lakes. Environmental Science and Technology. 43(24), 9077-9083. 2009. 59. EPA. Office of Research and Development. Compendium Method TO-9A: Determination Of Polychlorinated, Polybrominated And Brominated/Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins And Dibenzofurans In Ambient Air. 1999. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/airtox/to-9arr.pdf. 60. EPA. AERMOD. Technology Transfer Network Support Center for Regulatory Atmospheric Modeling, Meteorological Processors and Accessory Programs. Air dispersion software. 2016. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_prefrec.htm#aermod. 61. ACC. 2000. Brominated Flame Retardant End-User Survey—Phase 1. Study conducted by Breysse, P., and J. Kacergis, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health. Baltimore, MD. Doc ID 84010000001. May 19, 2000. 62. EC (European Commission). European Union Risk Assessment Report for 2,2′,6,6′-Tetrabromo-4,4′-Isopropylidenediphenol (Tetrabromobispheonl-A or TBBP-A) Part II—Human Health, CAS No. 79-94-7, EINECS No. 201-236-9. 4th Priority List, Volume: 63, EUR22161 EN. Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg. 2006. http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/risk_assessment/REPORT/tbbpaHHreport402.pdf. 63. Mäkinen, M.S.E., Mäkinen, M.R.A., Koistinen, J.T.B., Pasanen, A., Pertti, O.P., Kalliokoski, P.J., and Korpi, A.M. Respiratory and Dermal Exposure to Organophosphorus Flame Retardants and Tetrabromobisphenol A at Five Work Environments. Environmental Science and Technology. 43 (3), pp 941-947. 2009. 64. Rosenberg, C., M. Hameila, J. Tornaeus, K. Sakkinen, K. Puttonen, A. Korpi, M. Kiilunen, M. Linnainmaa, and A. Hesso. 2011. Exposure to Flame Retardants in Electronics Recycling Sites. Ann Occup Hyg, 55(6), 658-665. 65. Thuresson K, Bergman A, Jakobsson K. Occupational exposure to commercial decabromodiphenyl ether in workers manufacturing or handling flame-retarded rubber. Environmental Science and Technology. 39:1980-1986. 2005. 66. Zhou, X., J. Guo, W. Zhang, P. Zhou, J. Deng, and K. Lin. 2014. Tetrabromobisphenol A Contamination and Emission in Printed Circuit Board Production and Implications for Human Exposure. J Hazard Mater, 273(2014), 27-35. 67. NIOSH. Assessment of Occupational Exposure to Flame Retardants. 2014. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2014/dec/nioshupdate_508.pdf. 68. OSHA. OSHA Technical Manual (OTM), OSHA Instruction TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. https://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm_ii/otm_ii_2.html. 69. Gorman Ng, M., Semple, S., Cherrie, J.W., Christopher, Y., Northage, C., Tielemans, C., Veroughstraete, V. and M. Van Tongeren. 2012. The Relationship Between Inadvertent Ingestion and Dermal Exposure Pathways: A New Integrated Conceptual Model and a Database of Dermal and Oral Transfer Efficiencies. Annals of Occupational Hygiene. 56(9):1000-1012. 70. Matsukami, H., N.M. Tue, G. Suzuki, M. Someya, H. Tuyen le, P.H. Viet, S. Takahashi, S. Tanabe, and H. Takigami. Flame retardant emission from e-waste recycling operation in northern Vietnam: Environmental occurrence of emerging organophosphorus esters used as alternatives for PBDEs. Science of The Total Environment. 514, 492-499. 2015. 71. Qu, G., A. Liu, T. Wang, C. Zhang, J. Fu, M. Yu, J. Sun, N. Zhu, Z. Li, G. Wei, Y. Du, J. Shi, S. Liu, and G. Jiang. Identification of tetrabromobisphenol A allyl ether and tetrabromobisphenol A 2,3-dibromopropyl ether in the ambient environment near a manufacturing site and in mollusks at a coastal region. Environmental Science and Technology. 47(9), 4760-4767. 2013. 72. Schlabach, M., M. Remberger, E. Brorstrom-Lunden, K. Norstrom, L. Kaj, H. Andersson, D. Herzke, A. Borgen, and M. Harju. Brominated Flame Retardants (BFR) in the Nordic Environment. TemaNord. 2011:528. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2011. http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2011-528. 73. Wang, J., Liu, L., Wang, J., Pan, B., Fu, X., Zhang, G., . . . and Lin, K. Distribution of metals and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in sediments, soils and plants from an informal e-waste dismantling site, South China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 22(2):1020-1033. 2015. 74. Wang, W., K.O. Abualnaja, A.G. Asimakopoulos, A. Covaci, B. Gevao, B. Johnson-Restrepo, T. A. Kumosani, G. Malarvannan, T.B. Minh, H.-B. Moon, H. Nakata, R.K. Sinha, and K. Kannan. A comparative assessment of human exposure to tetrabromobisphenol A and eight bisphenols including bisphenol A via indoor dust ingestion in twelve countries. Environment International. 83, 183-191. 2015. 75. Wu, Y, et al. Tetrabromobisphenol A and heavy metal exposure via dust ingestion in an e-waste recycling region in southeast China. Science of the Total Environment. 541: 356-364. 2016. 76. Xu, T., J. Wang, S.-z. Liu, C. Lu, W.L. Shelver, Q. X. Li, and J. Li. A highly sensitive and selective immunoassay for the detection of tetrabromobisphenol A in soil and sediment. Analytica Chimica Acta. 751, 119-127. 2012. 77. EPA. Leaching studies (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.1240). 2008. 78. Larsen, G., F. Casey, A. Bergman, and H. Hakk. Mobility, Sorption and Fate of Tetrabromobisphenol a (TBBPA) in Loam Soil and Sand. Abstracts of the 2nd International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants. Part 2—Analysis and Fate, Products, Standards and Uses. Stockholm, Sweden. 2001. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Harner/publication/244465065_Measurements_of_OctanolAir_Partition_Coefficients_(_K_OA_)_for_Polybrominated_Diphenyl_Ethers_(PBDEs)_Predicting_Partitioning_in_the_Environment/file/9c960526a70f0039a2.pdf. 79. GLCC (Great Lakes Chemical Corporation). The Subchronic Toxicity of Sediment-Sorbed Tetrabromobisphenol a to Chironomus tentans under Flow-through Conditions (Final Report) with Cover Sheet and Letter Dated 101689. Study conducted by Breteler, R.J., J.R. Hoberg, N. Garvey, S.R. Connor, D.A. Hartley, S.P. Shepherd, P.H. Fackler, and P.D. Royal, Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. OTS# 0525507. Doc ID 40-8998109. 1989. 80. EPA. Simulation tests to assess the primary and ultimate biodegradability of chemicals discharged to wastewater (OPPTS Test Guideline 835.3280). 2008. 81. Nyholm, J.R., C. Lundberg, and P.L. Andersson. Biodegradation kinetics of selected brominated flame retardants in aerobic and anaerobic soil. Environmental Pollution. 158(6):2235-2240. 2010. 82. Li, F., J. Wang, B. Jiang, X. Yang, P. Nastold, B. Kolvenbach, L. Wang, Y. Ma, P.F. Corvini, and R. Ji. Fate of tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and formation of ester- and ether-linked bound residues in an oxic sandy soil. Environmental Science and Technology. 49(21):12758-12765. 2015. 83. Potvin, C.M., Z. Long, and H. Zhou. Removal of tetrabromobisphenol a by conventional activated sludge, submerged membrane and membrane aerated biofilm reactors. Chemosphere. 89(10):1183-1188. 2012. 84. EPA. Electronics Waste Management in the United States through 2009. EPA 530-R-11-002. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Washington, DC. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fullbaselinereport2011.pdf. 85. Borgnes, D., and B. Rikheim. Decomposition of BFRs and Emission of Dioxins from Co-Incineration of MSW and Electrical and Electronic Plastics Waste. Organohalogen Compounds. 66, 890-898. 2004. 86. Gallen, C., A. Banks, S. Brandsma, C. Baduel, P. Thai, G. Eaglesham, A. Heffernan, P. Leonards, P. Bainton, and J.F. Mueller. 2014. Towards Development of a Rapid and Effective Non-Destructive Testing Strategy to Identify Brominated Flame Retardants in the Plastics of Consumer Products. Sci Total Environ, 491-492, 255-265. 87. Guo, Q., Z. Du, Y. Zhang, X. Lu, J. Wang, and W. Yu. 2013. Simultaneous Determination of Bisphenol a, Tetrabromobisphenol a, and Perfluorooctanoic Acid in Small Household Electronics Appliances of “Prohibition on Certain Hazardous Substances in Consumer Products” Instruction Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry with Accelerated Solvent Extraction. J Sep Sci, 36(4), 677-683. 88. Puype, F., J. Samsonek, J. Knoop, M. Egelkraut-Holtus, and M. Ortlieb. 2015. Evidence of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Weee) Relevant Substances in Polymeric Food-Contact Articles Sold on the European Market. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess, 32(3), 410-426. 89. Rani, M., W.J. Shim, G.M. Han, M. Jang, Y.K. Song, and S.H. Hong. 2014. Hexabromocyclododecane in Polystyrene Based Consumer Products: An Evidence of Unregulated Use. Chemosphere, 110, 111-119. 90. Samsonek, J., and F. Puype. 2013. Occurrence of Brominated Flame Retardants in Black Thermo Cups and Selected Kitchen Utensils Purchased on the European Market. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess, 30(11), 1976-1986. 91. Washington State DE (Department of Ecology). 2016. Children's Safe Product Act Reports. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/cspareporting/Reports/ReportViewer.aspx?ReportName=ChemicalReportByCASNumber. 92. Wang, X., X. Hu, H. Zhang, F. Chang, and Y. Luo. Photolysis kinetics, mechanisms, and pathways of tetrabromobisphenol A in water under simulated solar light irradiation. Environmental Science and Technology. 49(11):6683-6690. 2015. 93. EPA. Photodegradation in water test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.2240). 2008. 94. Bao, Y., and J. Niu. Photochemical transformation of tetrabromobisphenol A under simulated sunlight irradiation: Kinetics, mechanism and influencing factors. Chemosphere. 134:550-556. 2015. 95. EPA. Indirect photolysis in water test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.5270). 2008. 96. EC (European Commission). Risk Assessment of 2,2′,6,6-Tetrabromo-4,4′-Isopropylidene Diphenol (Tetrabromobisphenol-A): CAS Number: 79-94-7; EINECS Number: 201-236-9; Final Environmental Risk Assessment Report of February 2008. R402_0802_env. Rapporteur: United Kingdom. 2008. http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17c7379e-f47b-4a76-aa43-060da5830c07. 97. EPA. Photodegradation in soil test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.2410). 2008. 98. GLCC (Great Lakes Chemical Corporation). 1989. Determination of the Biodegradability of Tetrabromobisphenol A in Soil under Aerobic Conditions. Final Report. Study conducted by, Springborn Life Sciences, Inc., (January 20, 1989), Wareham, MA. OTS# 0525513. Doc ID 42083 G3-2. 99. GLCC (Great Lakes Chemical Corporation). 1989. Determination of the Biodegradability of Tetrabromobisphenol A in Soil under Anaerobic Conditions (Final Report) with Attachments and Cover Letter Dated 013189. Study conducted by, Springborn Life Sciences, Inc., (January 19, 1989), Wareham, MA. OTS# 0525513. Doc ID 42083 G3-2. 100. Liu, J., Y. Wang, B. Jiang, L. Wang, J. Chen, H. Guo, and R. Ji. Degradation, metabolism, and bound-residue formation and release of tetrabromobisphenol A in soil during sequential anoxic-oxic incubation. Environmental Science and Technology. 47(15):8348-8354. 2013. 101. EPA. Aerobic and anaerobic transformation in soil test (OECD Test Guideline 307). 2008. 102. EPA. Terrestrial soil-core microcosm test (OCSPP Test Guideline 850.4900). 2008. 103. NITE (National Institute of Technology and Evaluation). #32: Bioaccumulation: Aquatic/Sediment for TBBPA (CASRN 79-94-7). Japan Chemicals Collaborative Knowledge Database, Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and Ministry of the Environment, Japan. 2010. http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/jcheck/template.action?ano=849andmno=4-0205andcno=79-94-7andrequest_locale=en (retrieved on November 14, 2014). 104. Fackler, P. Tetrabromobisphenol A. Determination of Biodegradability in a Sediment/Water Microbial System. SLS Report 89-8-3070. Springborn Life Sciences, Inc., Wareham, MA. 1989. http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/phenolis/c13460rr3.pdf. (retrieved in 2006). 105. EPA. Aerobic mineralization in surface water-simulation biodegradation test (OCSPP Test Guideline 835.3190). 2008. 106. EPA. Flame Retardants in Printed Circuit Boards: Final Report. EPA Publication 744-R-15-001. Design for the Environment (now Safer Choice), Washington, DC. 2015. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/pcb_final_report.pdf. (retrieved in 2017). 107. EPA. Episuite (Estimation Programs Interface). 2000-2012. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/epi-suitetm-estimation-program-interface (retrieved in 2017). 108. EPA (n.d.). Series 830—Product Properties Test Guidelines. https://www.epa.gov/testguidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-830-product-properties-test-guidelines (retrieved in 2016). 109. EPA (n.d.). Series 850—Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-850-ecological-effects-test-guidelines (retrieved in 2016). 110. EPA (n.d.). Series 870—Health Effects Test Guidelines. https://www.epa.gov/test-guidelines-pesticides-and-toxic-substances/series-870-health-effects-test-guidelines (retrieved in 2016). 111. EPA. ECOSAR v1.11. 2012. https://www.epa.gov/tsca-screening-tools/ecological-structure-activity-relationships-ecosar-predictive-model (retrieved in 2017). 112. OECD Test No. 421: Reproductive/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2007. 113. NTP (National Toxicology Program) (n.d.). Modified One-Generation Studies. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/testing/types/mog/index.html (retrieved in 2016). 114. OECD Test No. 426: Developmental Neurotoxicity Study. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4: Health Effects. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2007. 115. Lilienthal, H., C.M. Verwer, L.T. van der Ven, A. H. Piersma, and J.G. Vos. Exposure to Tetrabromobisphenol a (TBBPA) in Wistar Rats: Neurobehavioral Effects in Offspring from a One-Generation Reproduction Study. Toxicology. 246(1), 45-54. 2008. 116. MPI Research. An Oral Two Generation Reproductive, Fertility and Developmental Neurobehavioral Study of Tetrabromobisphenol-A in Rats (Unpublished). 2002. 117. MPI Research. Amendment to the Final Report. An Oral Two Generation Reproductive, Fertility and Developmental Neurobehavioural Study of Tetrabromobisphenol-A in Rats (Unpublished Report). 2003. 118. Zatecka, E., L. Ded, F. Elzeinova, A. Kubatova, A. Dorosh, H. Margaryan, P. Dostalova, and J. Peknicova. Effect of tetrabromobisphenol A on induction of apoptosis in the testes and changes in expression of selected testicular genes in CD1 mice. Reproductive Toxicology. 35:32-39. 2013. 119. Hass, H., C. Wamberg, O. Ladefoged, M. Dalgaard, H. Rye Lam, and A. Vinggard. Developmental Neurotoxicity of Tetrabromobisphenol A in Rats (Unpublished; Cited in EC, 2006). 2003. 120. MPI Research. Final Report—an Oral Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Study with Tatrabromobisphenol-A in Rats (Unpublished). 2001. 121. Noda, T., S. Morita, S. Ohgaki, and M. Shimizu. Safety Evaluation of Chemicals for Use in Household Products (VII) Teratological Studies on Tetrabromobisphenol-A in Rats. Annual Report of the Osaka Institute of Public Health and Environmental Sciences, 48, 106-112. 1985. 122. VCC (Velsicol Chemical Corporation). Pilot Teratology Study in Rats with Tetrabromobisphenol A with Cover Letter Dated 04/17/78. 0200479. 1978. 123. Eriksson, P., E. Jakobsson, and A. Fredriksson. Developmental Neurotoxicity of Brominated Flame Retardants, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and Tetrabromobisphenol A. Organohalogen Compounds, 35, 375-377. 1998. 124. Eriksson, P., E. Jakobsson, and A. Frederiksson. Brominated Flame Retardants: A Novel Class of Developmental Neurotoxicants in Our Environment? Environmental Health Perspectives. 109, 903-908. 2001. 125. Fukuda, N., Y. Ito, M. Yamaguchi, K. Mitumori, M. Koizumi, R. Hasegawa, E. Kamata, and M. Ema. Unexpected Nephrotoxicity Induced by Tetrabromobisphenol a in Newborn Rats. Toxicology Letters. 150, 145-155. 2004. 126. Kim, B., E. Colon, S. Chawla, L.N. Vandenberg, and A. Suvorov. Endocrine disruptors alter social behaviors and indirectly influence social hierarchies via changes in body weight. Environmental health: A global access science source. 14, 64. 2015. 127. Saegusa, Y., H. Fujimoto, G.H. Woo, K. Inoue, M. Takahashi, K. Mitsumori, A. Nishikawa, and M. Shibatani. Developmental Toxicity of Brominated Flame Retardants, Tetrabromobisphenol a and 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane, in Rat Offspring after Maternal Exposure from Mid-Gestation through Lactation. Reproductive Toxicology. 28, 456-467. 2009. 128. Saegusa, Y., H. Fujimoto, G.H. Woo, T. Ohishi, L. Wang, K. Mitsumori, A. Nishikawa, and M. Shibutani. Transient Aberration of Neuronal Development in the Hippocampal Dentate Gyrus after Developmental Exposure to Brominated Flame Retardants in Rats. Archives of Toxicology. 86(9), 1431-1442. 2012. 129. Tada, Y., T. Fujitani, N. Yano, H. Takahashi, K. Yuzawa, H. Ando, Y. Kubo, A. Nagasawa, A. Ogata, and H. Kamimura. Effects of Tetrabromobisphenol a, a Brominated Flame Retardant, in ICR Mice after Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 44(8), 1408-1413. 2006. 130. Viberg, H., and P. Eriksson. Differences in Neonatal Neurotoxicity of Brominated Flame Retardants, PBDE 99 and TBBPA, in Mice. Toxicology. 289(1), 59-65. 2011. 131. Kicinski, M., M.K. Viaene, E.D. Hond, G. Schoeters, A. Covaci, A.C. Dirtu, V. Nelen, L. Bruckers, K. Croes, I. Sioen, W. Baeyens, N. Van Larebeke, and T.S. Nawrot. 2012. Neurobehavioral Function and Low-Level Exposure to Brominated Flame Retardants in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Study. Environmental Health, 11, 1-12. 132. EPA. Larval amphibian growth and development assay (LAGDA) (OCSPP Test Guideline 890.2300). 2002. 133. ACC. HPV Data Summary and Test Plan for Phenol, 4,4′-Isopropylidenbis[2,6-Dibromo- (Tetrabromobisphenol a, TBBPA). Test plan revision/updates, revised test plan. Robust summaries & test plans: Phenol, 4,4′-isopropylidenbis[2,6-dibromo-. 2006. (retrieved in 2013) http://www.epa.gov/chemrtk/pubs/summaries/phenolis/c13460rt3.pdf. 134. Garber, E.A.E., G.L. Larsen, H. Hakk, and A. Bergman. Frog Embryo Teratogenic Assay: Xenopus (FETAX) Analysis of the Biological Activity of Tetrabromobisphenol a (TBBPA). Poster presentation at Second International Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants, May 14-16, Stockholm University, Sweden. 2001. 135. Balch, G.C., and C.D. Metcalfe. In Vivo Toxicity Testing of PBDEs Using Early Life Stages of the Japanese Medaka and the Xenopus Tail Resorption Model. 3rd Annual Workshop on Brominated Flame Retardants in the Environment. Canada Centre for Inland Waters, August 23-24, pp. 59-60. 2001. (as cited in EC, 2006 and ACC, 2006). 136. Brown, D.D., Z. Wang, J.D. Furlow, A. Kanamori, R.A. Schawartzman, B.F. FRemo, and A. Pinder. The thyroid hormone-induced tail resorption program during Xenopus laevis metamorphosis. Developmental Biology. 93:1924-1929. 1996. 137. Hanada, H., K. Katsu, T. Kanno, E.F. Sato, A. Kashiwagi, J. Sasaki, M. Inoue, and K. Utsumi. Cyclosporin a Inhibits Thyroid Hormone-Induced Shortening of the Tadpole Tail through Membrane Permeability Transition. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part B, 135, 473-483. 2003. 138. Kashiwagi, A., H. Hanada, M. Yabuki, T. Kanno, R. Ishisaka, J. Sasaki, M. Inoue, and K. Utsumi. Thyroxine Enhancement and the Role of Reactive Oxygen Species in Tadpole Tail Apoptosis. Free Radical Biology and Medicine. 26(7/8), 1001-1009. 1999. 139. Veldhoen, N., A. Boggs, K. Walzak, and C.C. Helbing. Exosure to Tetrabromobisphenol-a Alters Th-Associated Gene Expression and Tadpole Metamorphosis in the Pacific Tree Frog Pseudacris regilla. Aquatic Toxicology. 78, 292-302. 2006. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I

    Environmental protection, Flame retardants, Hazardous substances, tetrabromobisphenol A.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05291 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 217 [Docket No. 161216999-7232-01] RIN 0648-BG50 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS has received a request from the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS or Sanctuary) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to commercial fireworks displays permitted by the Sanctuary in California, over the course of five years (2017-2022). As required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is proposing regulations to govern that take, and requests comments on the proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Comments and information must be received no later than April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0017, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0017, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Availability

    An electronic copy of the MBNMS's application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained by visiting the Internet at: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm. In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Executive Summary

    These proposed regulations, under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), establish frameworks for authorizing the take of marine mammals incidental to the commercial fireworks displays in four regions within the MBNMS: Half Moon Bay, Santa Cruz/Soquel, Monterey Peninsula, and Cambria.

    Purpose and Need for This Regulatory Action

    On October 18, 2016, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the MBNMS requesting 5-year regulations authorizing the taking, by Level B harassment, of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) and harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardii) incidental to commercial fireworks displays permitted by the MBNMS. The Sanctuary's current incidental take authorization regulations expire July 3, 2017; therefore, the proposed regulations would be valid from July 4, 2017 through July 3, 2022.

    Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental but not intentional taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if, after notice and public comment, the agency makes certain findings and issue regulations. These proposed regulations contain mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I provide the legal basis for issuing the five-year regulations and any subsequent Letters of Authorization (LOAs).

    Summary of Major Provisions Within the Proposed Regulations

    The following provides a summary of some of the major provisions within this proposed rulemaking for MBNMS fireworks in the four display areas. We have preliminarily determined that the MBNMS's adherence to the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures listed below would achieve the least practicable adverse impact on the affected marine mammals. They include:

    • Fireworks will not be authorized during the primary spring breeding season for marine wildlife (March 1 to June 30);

    • Up to two shows per year can be an hour in length but all other fireworks displays will not exceed thirty minutes in duration and will occur with an average frequency less than or equal to once every two months;

    • Delay of aerial “salute” effects until five minutes after the commencement of any fireworks display;

    • Remove all plastic and aluminum labels and wrappings from pyrotechnic devices prior to use and required recovery of all fireworks-related debris from the launch site and afflicted beaches; and

    • Required monitoring and reporting of marine mammals at the fireworks site prior to and after each display.

    Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by United States (U.S.) citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

    Summary of Request

    On October 18, 2016, NMFS received a complete application from the MBNMS requesting authorization to take, by Level B harassment, two species of marine mammals incidental to commercial fireworks displays conducted under sanctuary authorization permits issued by the MBNMS. Marine mammals within the sanctuary would be exposed to elevated levels of sound and light as a result of authorized fireworks displays. The MBNMS has monitored individual displays over the years to improve its understanding of their characteristics and potential impacts to sanctuary resources. When exposed to lights and noise from fireworks, hauled-out sea lions and seals may exhibit signs of disturbance such as flushing, cessation of vocalizations, and a delay in returning to a haul-out. NMFS considers these types of responses to constitute take, by Level B harassment; therefore, the MBNMS has requested regulations governing that take. NMFS proposes to issue the requested regulations and 5-year LOA. On November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78993), we published a notice of receipt of MBNMS's application in the Federal Register, requesting comments and information related to the request for 30 days. We did not receive any comments.

    The MBNMS was designated as the ninth national marine sanctuary (NMS) in the United States on September 18, 1992. Managed by the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) within NOAA, the Sanctuary adjoins 240 nautical miles (nmi) of central California's outer coastline (overlaying 25 percent of state coastal waters), and encompasses 4,601 square nmi of ocean waters from mean high tide to an average of 26 nmi offshore between Rocky Point in Marin County and Cambria in San Luis Obispo County. The MBNMS has authorized fireworks displays over Sanctuary waters for many years as part of national and community celebrations (e.g., Independence Day, municipal anniversaries), and to foster public use and enjoyment of the marine environment. In central California, marine venues are the preferred setting for fireworks in order to optimize public access and avoid the fire hazard associated with terrestrial display sites.

    NMFS has issued incidental take authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A or D) of the MMPA to MBNMS for the specified activity since 2005. NMFS first issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA to MBNMS on July 4, 2005 (70 FR 39235; July 7, 2005), and subsequently issued 5-year regulations governing the annual issuance of LOAs under section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA (71 FR 40928; July 19, 2006). Upon expiration of those regulations, NMFS issued MBNMS an IHA (76 FR 29196; May 20, 2011), and subsequent 5-year regulations and LOA which expire on July 3, 2017 (77 FR 31537; May 29, 2012).

    Per previous IHAs, regulations, and LOAs, the MBNMS has monitored California sea lions and harbor seals at the four regions where fireworks displays are authorized. Based on these and other data combined with the MBNMS's estimated maximum number of annual fireworks displays, MBNMS is requesting authorization to incidentally harass up to 3,810 California sea lions and 570 harbor seals, annually.

    Description of the Specified Activity Overview

    Sponsors of fireworks displays conducted in the MBNMS are required to obtain sanctuary authorization prior to conducting such displays (see 15 CFR 922.132). Since the MBNMS began issuing permits for fireworks discharge in 1993, it has received a total of 102 requests for professional fireworks displays, the majority of which have been associated with large community events such as Independence Day and municipal festivals. MBNMS has permitted, on average, approximately five fireworks displays per year; however, only 2 to 4 displays were hosted annually between 2009 and 2015. However, economic conditions or other factors could result in more requests. Therefore, the MBNMS anticipates authorizing a maximum of 10 fireworks displays, annually, in 4 display areas along 276 mi (444 km) of coastline during the effective period of these proposed regulations.

    Dates and Duration

    The specified activity may occur from July 1 through February 28, annually, for the effective period of the proposed regulations (July 4, 2017 through July 3, 2022). Each display will be limited to 30 minutes in duration with the exception of two events per year lasting up to one hour each. Events throughout the year will occur with an average frequency of less than or equal to once every two months within each of the four prescribed display areas. The MBNMS does not authorize fireworks from March 1 through June 30, annually, to avoid overlap with primary reproductive periods; therefore, no takes of marine mammals incidental to the specified activity would occur during this moratorium period.

    Specific Geographic Region

    Pyrotechnic displays within the sanctuary are conducted from a variety of coastal launch sites (e.g., beaches, bluff tops, piers, offshore barges, golf courses). Authorized fireworks displays would be confined to four prescribed areas (with seven total sub-sites) within the sanctuary, while displays along the remaining 95 percent of sanctuary coastline would be prohibited. These sites were approved for fireworks events based on their proximity to urban areas and pre-existing high human use patterns, seasonal considerations such as the abundance and distribution of marine wildlife, and the acclimation of wildlife to human activities and elevated ambient noise levels in the area.

    The four display areas are located, from north to south, at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Peninsula (Pacific Grove/North and South Monterey), and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek) (see Figure 1 in MBNMS's application). The number of displays is not expected to exceed 10 total events per year across all four areas. Detailed descriptions of each display area are available in the 2006 Environmental Assessment of the Issuance of a Small Take Regulations and LOAs and the Issuance of National Marine Sanctuary Authorizations for Coastal Commercial Fireworks Displays within Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA (available online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/incidental/research.htm).

    Half Moon Bay

    Half Moon Bay is a bay of the Pacific Ocean on the coast of San Mateo County, California. Surrounding coastal towns include Princeton-by-the-Sea, Miramar, El Granada, and the city of Half Moon Bay which is located approximately 25 mi (40 km) south of San Francisco, 10 mi (16 km) west of San Mateo, and 45 mi (72 km) north of Santa Cruz. This site has been used annually for a medium-sized Independence Day fireworks display on July 4, which lasts about 20 minutes. The launch site is on a sandy beach inside and adjacent to the east outer breakwater, upon which the aerial shells are launched and aimed to the southwest. The marine venue adjacent to Pillar Point Harbor is preferred for optimal public access and to avoid the fire hazard associated with terrestrial display sites.

    Half Moon Bay and specifically Pillar Point Harbor is heavily used by the public in multiple ways, including, but not limited to, commercial fishing, recreational water and beach use, and air and automobile travel. The harbor supports a commercial fishing fleet and a considerable volume of recreational boat traffic. Pillar Point is also known as “Mavericks” which is a world-class surfing destination; therefore, surfers and swimmers are also prevalent. Half Moon Bay Airport is located adjacent to the harbor and approach and departure routes pass directly over the acute impact area. On weekends, with good weather, the airport may accommodate as many as fifty flights per day. The impact area is also subjected to daily traffic noise from California Highway 1, which runs along the coast and is the primary travel route through the area.

    Santa Cruz/Soquel

    Two separate fireworks display sites are located within the Santa Cruz/Soquel area: Santa Cruz and Aptos. The launch site in Soquel is on a sandy beach on the west bank of the San Lorenzo River adjacent to the Santa Cruz Boardwalk. This site is used during October, annually, for the City of Santa Cruz anniversary fireworks displays. During the fireworks display, 40-70 vessels may anchor within the acute impact area to view the fireworks, with vessels moving throughout the waters south of the launch site to take up position. In addition, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and harbor patrol vessels motor through the impact area to maintain a safety zone around the launch site.

    Similar to Half Moon Bay, this area is heavily urbanized. The harbor immediately adjacent to the Santa Cruz impact area is home to a commercial fishing fleet and supports a large volume of recreational boater traffic. The beaches to the west of the Soquel launch site are adjacent to a large coastal amusement park complex and are used extensively by beachgoers and water sport enthusiasts from the local area as well as San Jose and San Francisco. Immediately southwest of the launch site is a mooring field and the Santa Cruz Municipal Pier which is lined with retail shops, restaurants, and offices. To the west of the pier is a popular local surfing destination known as `Steamer Lane'.

    The Aptos site is located at Seacliff State Beach off Highway 1 and is typically used by the Monte Foundation each October for a large fundraiser supporting Aptos area schools. At the seaward end of the Aptos Pier is a historic 400-feet (ft) (122-meters (m)) cement vessel, which was purposefully grounded in its current position as an extension of the pier, but to which public access has since been restricted. The exposed interior decks of the vessel have created convenient haul-out surfaces for harbor seals. During the period from sunset through the duration of the fireworks display, 30-40 vessels anchor within the acute impact area to view the fireworks, typically traveling throughout the waters seaward of the cement vessel to take up position. In addition, USCG and State Park Lifeguard vessels motor through the impact area to maintain a safety zone around the launch site.

    Monterey Peninsula

    Two separate fireworks display sites (City of Monterey and Pacific Grove) are located within the Monterey Peninsula area. For Independence Day, the City of Monterey typically launches approximately 750 shells and an equal number of low-level effects from a barge anchored approximately 1,000 ft (305 m) east of Municipal Wharf II and 1,000 ft north of Del Monte Beach. The City's display typically lasts approximately 20 minutes and is accompanied by music broadcasted from speakers on Wharf II. A Monterey New Year's festival has at times used the City's launch barge for an annual fireworks display. This medium-size aerial display typically lasts approximately 8 minutes, when it occurs. In addition, several private displays have been authorized from a launch site on Del Monte Beach, including an aerial display and low-level displays, lasting approximately 7 minutes.

    As with all other sites, this region is heavily urbanized. Here, the impact area lies directly under the approach/departure flight path for Monterey Peninsula Airport and is commonly exposed to noise and exhaust from general aviation, commercial, and military aircraft at approximately 500 ft (152 m) altitude. The airport supports approximately 280 landings/takeoffs per day in addition to touch-and-goes (landing and takeoff training). Auto traffic and emergency vehicles are audible from Lighthouse and Del Monte Avenues, main transportation arteries along the adjacent shoreline. On the water, commercial and recreational vessels operate at all hours from the adjacent harbor. A thirty-station mooring field lies between the launch barge and Municipal Wharf II. The moorings are usually completely occupied during the annual fireworks event. During the period from sunset through the duration of the fireworks display, 20-30 vessels anchor within the acute impact area to view the fireworks, with vessels transiting through the waters south of the launch site to take up position. In addition, USCG and harbor patrol vessels motor through the impact area to maintain a safety zone around the launch site.

    The Pacific Grove site is in the center of an urban shoreline adjacent to a public beach. The shoreline to the east and west of the launch site is lined with residences and a public road and pedestrian trail. The launch site is at the top of a rocky coastal bluff adjacent to an urban recreation trail and public road. At peak usage, the beach may support up to 500 visitors at any given time. Surfing, swimming and boating activity is common.

    This Pacific Grove site is typically used for an annual `Feast of Lanterns' fireworks display in late July which is part of a community event that has been celebrated in the City of Pacific Grove for over 100 years. The fireworks are part of a traditional outdoor play that concludes the festival. The small aerial display typically lasts approximately 20 minutes and is accompanied by music broadcasted from speakers at Lover's Cove. During the period from sunset through the duration of the fireworks display, 10-20 vessels anchor within the acute impact area to view the fireworks. A USCG vessel motors through the impact area to maintain a safety zone seaward of the launch site.

    Cambria

    The Cambria site is a public sandy beach at Shamel County Park. Immediately north of the launch site is the mouth of Santa Rosa Creek and Lagoon. The impact area is used by boaters, recreational fishermen, swimmers, surfers, and beachgoers. The shoreline south of the launch site is lined with hotels, abuts a residential neighborhood, and is part of San Simeon State Beach. This site is typically used each year for a 20-minute Independence Day fireworks display on July 4.

    Detailed Description of the Specified Activity

    Professional pyrotechnic devices used in fireworks displays can be grouped into three general categories: Aerial shells (paper and cardboard spheres or cylinders ranging from 2-12 inch (in) (5-30 centimeter (cm)) in diameter and filled with incendiary materials), low-level comet and multi-shot devices similar to over-the-counter fireworks (e.g., roman candles), and ground-mounted set piece displays that are mostly static in nature. Each display is unique according to the type and number of shells, the pace of the show, the length of the show, the acoustic qualities of the display site, and even the weather and time of day. An average large display will last 20 minutes and include 700 aerial shells and 750 low-level effects. An average smaller display lasts approximately seven minutes and includes 300 aerial shells and 550 low-level effects.

    Aerial Shells

    Aerial shells are launched from tubes (i.e., mortars), using black powder charges, to altitudes of 200 to 1,000 ft (61 to 305 m) where they explode and ignite internal burst charges and incendiary chemicals. Most of the incendiary elements and shell casings burn up in the atmosphere; however, portions of the casings and some internal structural components and chemical residue may fall back to the ground or water, depending on prevailing winds. An aerial shell casing is constructed of paper/cardboard or plastic and may include some plastic or paper internal components used to compartmentalize chemicals within the shell. Within the shell casing is a burst charge (usually black powder) and a recipe of various chemical pellets (i.e., stars) that emit colored light (up to 30,000 candela) when ignited. Chemicals commonly used in the manufacturing of pyrotechnic devices include: Potassium chlorate, potassium perchlorate, potassium nitrate, sodium benzoate, sodium oxalate, ammonium, perchlorate, strontium nitrate, strontium carbonate, sulfur, charcoal, copper oxide, polyvinyl chloride, iron, titanium, shellac, dextrine, phenolic resin, and aluminum. Manufacturers consider the amount and composition of chemicals within a given shell to be proprietary information and only release aggregate descriptions of internal shell components. The arrangement and packing of stars and burst charges within the shell determine the type of effect produced upon detonation.

    Attached to the bottom of an aerial shell is a lift charge of black powder. The lift charge and shell are placed at the bottom of a mortar that has been buried in earth/sand or affixed to a wooden rack. After a fuse attached to the lift charge is ignited with an electric charge or heat source, the lift charge explodes and propels the shell through the mortar tube and into the air to a height determined by the amount of powder in the lift charge and the weight of the shell. As the shell travels skyward, a time-delay secondary fuse ignites the burst charge within the shell at peak altitude. The burst charge then detonates, igniting and scattering the stars, which may, in turn, produce small secondary explosions. Shells can be launched one at a time or in a barrage of simultaneous or quick succession launches. They are designed to detonate between 200 and 1,000 ft (61 to 305 m) above ground level.

    In addition to color shells (also known as designer or starburst shells), a typical fireworks show will usually include a number of aerial `salute' shells. The primary purpose of salute shells is to signify the beginning and end of the show and produce a loud percussive audible effect. These shells are typically 2-3 in (5-7 cm) in diameter and packed with black powder to produce a punctuated explosive burst at high altitude. From a distance, these shells sound similar to cannon fire when detonated.

    Low-Level Comet and Multi-Shot Devices

    Low-level devices consist of stars packed linearly within a tube which, when ignited, exit the tube in succession producing a fountain effect of single or multi-colored light as the stars incinerate during the course of their flight. Typically, the stars burn rather than explode, thus producing a ball or trail of sparkling light to a prescribed altitude where they extinguish. Sometimes they may terminate with a small explosion similar to a firecracker. Other low-level devices emit a projected hail of colored sparks or perform erratic low-level flight while emitting a high-pitched whistle, or emit a pulsing light pattern or crackling or popping sound effects. In general, low-level launch devices and encasements remain on the ground or attached to a fixed structure and can be removed upon completion of the display. Common low-level devices are multi-shot devices, mines, comets, meteors, candles, strobe pots and gerbs. They are designed to produce effects between 0 and 200 ft (61 m) AGL.

    Ground Level Fireworks

    Ground level or set-piece fireworks are primarily static in nature and remain close to the ground. They are usually attached to a framework that may be crafted in the design of a logo or familiar shape, illuminated by pyrotechnic devices such as flares, sparklers and strobes. These fireworks typically employ bright flares and sparkling effects that may also emit limited sound effects such as cracking, popping, or whistling. Set pieces are usually used in concert with low-level effects or an aerial show and sometimes act as a centerpiece for the display. They may have some moving parts, but typically do not launch devices into the air. Set piece displays are designed to produce effects between 0 and 50 ft (15 m) AGL.

    The vast majority of fireworks displays authorized by the Sanctuary have been aerial displays that usually included simultaneous low-level displays. An average large display may last 20 minutes and include approximately 700 aerial shells and 750 low-level effects. An average smaller display may last approximately seven minutes and include 300 aerial shells and 550 low-level effects. Recent displays have shown a declining trend in the total number of shells used in aerial displays, likely due to increasing shell costs and/or fixed entertainment budgets. Low-level displays sometimes compensate for the absence of an aerial show by squeezing a larger number of effects into a shorter timeframe. This results in a dramatic and rapid burst of light and sound effects at low level. A large low-level display may expend 4,900 effects within a 7-minute period, and a small display will use an average of 1,800 effects within the same timeframe.

    Fireworks Noise Levels

    The MBNMS has conducted acoustic monitoring of select fireworks displays within the Sanctuary. In this document, all sound levels, unless otherwise noted, are referenced to re: 20 µPa to represent in-air levels. During a July 4, 2007 display within Monterey Bay harbor, average ambient sound levels prior to and after fireworks displays ranged from 58.8 to 59 decibels (dB). Sound levels from the show averaged 70-124 dB approximately 800 m from launch site with peaks up to 133 dB (Thorson and Berg, 2007).

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    Twenty-six species of marine mammals are known to occur within Sanctuary boundaries. Twenty of these are cetaceans (whales and dolphins) which are not expected to be taken, by harassment, via aerial fireworks because sound attenuates rapidly across the air-water interface; therefore, they are not discussed further in this document. One species, the sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis), is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); therefore, this species is also not considered further in this document. The five remaining species are pinnipeds (seals and sea lions).

    The species of pinnipeds present within the Sanctuary include the California sea lion, Pacific harbor seal, Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), and Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus). The Northern elephant seal does not overlap temporally with the proposed fireworks displays and therefore are not likely to be impacted by the specified activity. There is also no known temporal or spatial overlap between the display areas and Northern and Guadalupe fur seals. Therefore, based on scientific surveys investigating distribution and abundance of marine mammals throughout the Sanctuary and previous monitoring reports submitted in compliance with previous incidental take authorizations, NMFS has determined the only species likely to be harassed by the fireworks displays are the California sea lion and harbor seal.

    California Sea Lion

    The U.S. population of California sea lions ranges from southern Mexico to southwestern Canada (Carretta et al., 2007). Pupping typically occurs in late May to June. Most individuals of this species breed during July on the Channel Islands off southern California which is approximately 100 mi (161 km) south of the MBNMS, and off Baja and mainland Mexico (Odell 1981), although a few pups have been born on Año Nuevo Island (Keith et al., 1984). Following the breeding season on the Channel Islands, most adult and sub-adult males migrate northward to central and northern California and to the Pacific Northwest, while most females and young animals either remain on or near the breeding grounds throughout the year or move southward or northward, as far as Monterey Bay.

    The greatest concentration of California sea lions in the MBNMS occur on Año Nuevo Island and Monterey breakwater. Año Nuevo Island is the largest single haul-out site in the sanctuary, hosting as many as 9,000 California sea lions at times (Lowry2001). Stage structure of California sea lions within the Sanctuary varies by location, but generally, the majority of animals are adult and subadult males, primarily using the central California area to feed during the non-breeding season and are most common in the MBNMS during fall and spring migrations between southern breeding areas and northern feeding areas. Though males are generally most common, females may comprise 34 to 37 percent of juvenile individuals on the Monterey breakwater during El Niño events (Nicholson 1986).

    Since nearing extinction in the early 1900s, the California sea lion population has increased dramatically; however, oceanographic conditions (e.g., El Niño) influence how many are found in the Sanctuary on any given year. Population trends are based on pup counts which have increased from approximately 12,000 in 1975 to 61,943 in 2011 (Carretta et al., 2016) although there is a strong correlation to decreased pup counts and increased mortality during El Nino years. The minimum population size for this stock is 153,337 with a best estimate of 296,750 individuals (Carretta et al., 2016). The potential biological removal (PBR) level for this stock is 9,200 animals (Carretta et al., 2016). The population is not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, nor is this a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA.

    Harbor Seal

    Harbor seals are distributed throughout the west coast of the U.S., inhabiting near-shore coastal and estuarine areas from Baja California, Mexico, to the Pribilof Islands in Alaska. They generally do not migrate but have been known to travel extensive distances to find food or suitable breeding areas (Carretta et al., 2006). In California, approximately 400-600 harbor seal haul-out sites are widely distributed along the mainland and on offshore islands (Carretta et al., 2007).

    Harbor seals are residents in the MBNMS throughout the year. This species inhabits offshore rocks, sand and mudflats in estuaries and bays, and isolated beaches. They haul out at dozens of sites from Point Sur to Año Nuevo. Within MBNMS, tagged harbor seals have been documented to move substantial distances (10-20 km (3.9-7.8 mi)) to foraging areas each night (Oxman 1995; Trumble 1995). Overall, radio-tagged individuals have moved total distances of 480 km (Allen et al., 1987). The greatest concentration of harbor seals occurs on the northeast Monterey Peninsula. Using mark-recapture methods based on re-sightings of recognizable individuals, Nicholson (2000) estimated an approximate stage structure in the study area of 38 percent adult females, 15 percent adult males, 34 percent subadults, and 13 percent yearlings or juveniles in this area.

    Pupping within the Sanctuary occurs primarily during March and April, followed by a molt during May and June. Peak abundance on land within the Sanctuary is reached in late spring and early summer when harbor seals haul out to breed, give birth to pups, and molt. Fireworks would not be authorized from March 1 through June 30, annually, to avoid peak reproductive periods.

    Counts of harbor seals in California increased from 1981 to 2004 when the statewide maximum count was recorded. However, subsequent surveys conducted in 2009 and 2012 have been lower than the 2004 maximum count. The minimum population estimate is 27,348 with a best estimate of 30,968 individuals (Carretta et al., 2016). PBR is 1,641 animals per year (Carretta et al., 2016). The population is not listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, nor is this a depleted or strategic stock under the MMPA.

    Potential Effects of the Specific Activity on Marine Mammals and Their Habitat

    This section includes a summary and discussion of the ways that components of the specified activity, including mitigation, may impact marine mammals and their habitat. The “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section later in this document will include a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by this activity. The “Negligible Impact Analysis” section will include the analysis of how this specific activity will impact marine mammals and will consider the content of this section, the “Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment” section and the “Proposed Mitigation” section to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of this activity on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and, from that, on the affected marine mammal populations or stocks.

    Marine mammals can be impacted by fireworks displays in four ways: sound, light, debris, and human presence. The primary causes of disturbance to pinnipeds not already disturbed by the gathering of people and/or vessels are light flashes and sound effects from exploding fireworks. Pyrotechnic devices that operate at higher altitudes (such as aerial shells) are more likely to have a larger impact area, while ground and low-level devices have more confined effects. The impact area is defined as the area where sound, light, and debris may have direct impacts on marine mammals. Impacts include, but are not limited to, abrupt changes in behavior such as cessation of vocalizations, flushing, and diving. These impacts have been described in detail in multiple documents associated with previous incidental take authorizations, including, but not limited to, NMFS Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Issuance of Small Take Regulations and LOAs and the Issuance of National Marine Sanctuary Authorizations for Coastal Commercial Fireworks Displays Within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (2006), Read and Reynolds (2001), MBNMS (2002), and Thorson and Berg (2007). Here, we provide relevant information from those sources to describe the potential impacts of fireworks displays on pinnipeds within the impact area.

    Auditory Effects Marine Mammal Hearing

    To review hearing capabilities of the two species of pinnipeds potentially taken incidental to the specified activity, it is necessary to break them down into their respective families: Phocidae (harbor seals) and Otariidae (California sea lions). As reviewed in NMFS (2016), phocid ears are anatomically distinct from otariid ears in that phocids have larger, more dense middle ear ossicles, inflated auditory bullae, and larger sections of the inner ear (i.e., tympanic membrane, oval window, and round window. However, Southall et al., (2007) discusses that, in air, pinniped ears work very much like other terrestrial mammals and estimates pinnipeds auditory bandwidth between 70 hertz (Hz) and 30 kilohertz (kHz).

    Threshold Shift

    When marine mammals are exposed to elevated noise levels, they can experience a threshold shift (TS). NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as “a change, usually an increase, in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level” (NMFS 2016). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in decibels (ANSI 1995; Yost 2007). A TS can be permanent (PTS) or temporary (TTS). As described in NMFS (2016), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the potential for a noise-induced TS, including, but not limited to, the signal characteristics (e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), exposure duration, level and frequency, recovery time (seconds to minutes or hours to days), and general overlap between sound source and species (e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral), including the hearing and vocalization frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum (i.e., how animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014).

    There are two types of physiological auditory impacts NMFS considers when marine mammals could be exposed to elevated sounds from a specified activity: PTS and TTS. PTS is defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40 dB threshold shift approximates PTS onset (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). NMFS considers PTS to constitute Level A harassment.

    TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound (Kryter 1985). NMFS defines TTS as a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS 2016). A TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (as reviewed in NMFS 2016). TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Richardson et al. (1995) noted the magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure, among other considerations.

    There are no direct data on pinniped hearing impacts from fireworks; however, researchers at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) conducted auditory brainstem response (ABR) testing on harbor seals prior to and after launches of four Titan IV rockets (which result in sonic booms), one Taurus launch, and two Delta IV launches in accordance with issued scientific research permits (MSRS 2009). Detailed analysis of the changes in waveform latency and waveform replication of the ABR measurements for the 14 seals showed no detectable changes in the seals' hearing sensitivity as a result of exposure to the launch noise. One seal had substantial decreased acuity to the 8 kilohertz (kHz) tone-burst stimuli prior to the launch. The cause of this hearing loss was unknown but was most likely congenital or from infection. Another seal had a great deal of variability in waveform latencies in response to identical stimuli. This animal moved repeatedly during testing, which may have reduced the sensitivity of the ABR testing on this animal for both the click and 8 kHz tone burst stimuli. More detail regarding these tests can be found in NMFS proposed rule prepared for VAFB's rocket launches (78 FR 7379; December 9, 2013).

    Monitoring reports indicate sea lion vocalizations can continue throughout a display (MBNMS 2007) or a colony can reduce or cease auditory communication (MBNMS 2002). Harbor seals are more likely to cease vocalization than sea lions (NMFS 2006). In either case, within hours of a display ending, marine mammals have been documented as vocalizing and behaving normally (MBNMS 1998, 2002; NMFS 2006). As described above, sound level approximately 800 m from a fireworks barge (which is representative of distances between sources and haul-outs) averaged 70-124 dB and did not exceed 133 dB (peak). For comparison, Southall et al. (2000) recommended injury criteria for pinnipeds in-air be established at 149 dB (peak). Based on these data, NMFS believes it is unlikely sea lions and seals would sustain temporary, much less permanent, hearing impairment during fireworks displays.

    Behavioral Disturbance

    Fireworks displays are limited to urban areas and, as such, pinnipeds potentially impacted are exposed to every day anthropogenic disturbances such as human presence, boating, airplanes, etc. However, fireworks are known to acutely disturb animals due to elevated noise levels and visual stimulation. NMFS anticipates some sea lions and seals will avoid or temporarily depart the impact area during the hours immediately prior to the beginning of the fireworks display due to increased human recreational activities associated with the overall celebration event. In particular, a flotilla of recreational and commercial boats usually gathers in a semi-circle within the impact area to view the fireworks display from the water. Some boaters also set off their own personal fireworks. From sunset until the start of the display, security vessels of the USCG and/or other government agencies often patrol throughout the waters of the impact area to keep vessels a safe distance from the launch site.

    In general, upon detonation of the first few fireworks, California sea lions and harbor seals will flush from usual and accustomed haul-out sites for as little as 15 minutes to as much as 15 hours following any fireworks event. Some animals may remain in the water near the haul-out site while others may leave the immediate area. Below are summaries of accounts from detailed observations made by sanctuary staff over an 8-year period (1993-2001), in-depth surveys conducted in 2001 and 2007, and pre- and post-event monitoring conducted under MMPA authorizations from 2005-2015.

    California Sea Lions

    Of all the display sites in the Sanctuary, California sea lions are only present in significant concentration at Monterey. No signs of long-term behavioral impacts have been detected as a result of fireworks displays. However, acute behavioral impacts have been documented and NMFS expects sea lions to react in a similar manner as described here. In the first seconds of a 2001 fireworks display at Monterey Bay, the sea lion colony became very quiet, vocalizations ceased, and younger sea lions evacuated the haul out. Most of the colony remained intact until the older bulls evacuated, usually after a salvo of overhead bursts in short succession. Once the bulls departed, the entire colony followed suit, swimming toward the open sea. Some sea lions attempted to haul-out again but returned to the water during subsequent fireworks bursts. After the show, many sea lions returned to the breakwater within 30 minutes following the conclusion of the display but have been observed to remain quiet for some time. The colony reestablished itself on the breakwater within 2-3 hours following the conclusion of the display, during which vocalization activity returned. Typically, the older bulls are the first to renew vocalization behavior (within the first hour), followed by the younger animals. By the next morning, the entire colony is expected to be intact and functioning with no visible sign of abnormal behavior.

    Another detailed account of reactions of sea lions to fireworks is found within Thorson and Berg (2007) which reports marine mammal and acoustic monitoring data from the July 4, 2007 fireworks at the Monterey Bay breakwater. The methods used during the event were as follows: Counts of marine mammals were conducted by an approved marine mammal observer, using high quality binoculars during daytime observations or when there was sufficient ambient light. Night vision goggles were used during night time hours. Observations were made from an MBNMS vessel. Counts were made approximately every hour beginning at 16:27 on July 4, 2007, and continued through 23:05. Counts were concentrated along the jetty where the majority of sea lions were hauled out. Sea lions were also counted along the USCG pier and on several buoys in the harbor. During each count, the time, area observed, the species present, group composition when possible (age class and gender), general behavior (e.g., resting, interacting), and other disturbances (vessels, aircraft etc.) were recorded. Environmental conditions were also recorded and included air temperature, tide, wind speed and swell height (outside of the harbor). The response of pinnipeds to the fireworks (head lifts, flush or movements), behavior in the water (milling, interacting with conspecifics, swimming or leaving the area) and the time to return to the haul-out, if animals flush, were recorded. Counts were continued for 1.5 hours after the fireworks ended. Counts were also made on the following day (July 5) from 08:10 to 09:12.

    California sea lions were the most numerous of the marine mammal species with up to 291 sea lions observed. Most sea lions were yearlings or juveniles (2-4 years old). Two sub adult males (approximately 5-6 years old) were also observed and appeared to be practicing holding a water territory. The majority of sea lions hauled out on the jetty during the day (up to 90 percent) appeared to be resting.

    The number of sea lions was steady until approximately 20:45 when several boats passed by the end of the jetty and shot off their own fireworks causing a number of sea lions to enter the water. At the beginning of the fireworks display, there were only six sea lions hauled out at the end of the USCG pier. By the fourth fireworks detonation, the last of the sea lions had entered the water. The fireworks ended at 21:37, and the first sea lion hauled back out at 21:55. The first sea lion to return was a sub adult male that had been at the end of the jetty. By the time observations ended at 23:05, four sea lions had hauled out on the jetty. On July 5, two counts were made of the sea lions along the jetty and USCG pier. Both counts were higher than the previous day.

    Harbor Seals

    In general, harbor seals are more timid and easily disturbed than California sea lions. Thus, based on past observations of sea lion disturbance thresholds and behavior, it is very likely that harbor seals evacuate exposed haul outs in the impact area during fireworks displays, though they may loiter in adjacent surface waters until the fireworks have concluded (MBNMS). The following describes observations during the same July 4, 2007, fireworks event referenced above: Harbor seals were observed hauled out on exposed rocks just offshore of the western end of the harbor from 18:50 to 20:38; however the tide was high and only 8 harbor seals were hauled out resting, while 1 to 2 animals were seen resting in the water. Because the primary purpose of the monitoring was to document sea lion reactions to the fireworks, observations during the display were at a location not conducive to monitoring harbor seals. At 70 minutes after the end of the fireworks, there were no harbor seals hauled out. On the day after the fireworks and with a lower tide (0.8 vs. 0.0 m), there were 31 harbor seals hauled out at the west end of the harbor. These observations (i.e., flushing followed by full recolonization by the next day) are consistent with other monitoring reports.

    In addition to fireworks events, harbor seals have been monitored at VAFB in response to rocket launches. Since 1997, there have been five to seven space vehicle launches per year and there appears to be only short-term disturbance effects to harbor seals as a result of launch noise. Harbor seals will temporarily leave their haul-out when exposed to launch noise; however, they generally return to the haul-out within one hour. Harbor seals also typically leave the haul-out site and enter the water due to the noise created by launch vehicles during launch operations. The percentage of seals leaving the haul-out increases with noise level up to approximately 100 dB ASEL, after which almost all seals leave, although data have shown that some percentage of seals (all adults) have remained on shore during launches. The louder the launch noise, the longer it took for seals to begin returning to the haul-out site and for the numbers to return to pre-launch levels. Seals may begin to return to the haul-out site within 2-55 minutes of the launch disturbance, and the haul-out site usually returned to pre-launch levels within 45-120 minutes. In contrast, noise levels from an Atlas launch and several Titan II launches had ASELs ranging from 86.7 to 95.7 dB at the closest haul-out, and seals began to return to the haul-out site within 2- 8 minutes post-launch. More detail regarding VAFB monitoring results can be found in NMFS proposed rule for VAFB's rocket launches (78 FR 7379; December 9, 2013).

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Regarding impacts to marine mammal habitat, debris and chemical residue from fireworks can fall upon land and waters near a fireworks detonation site. The tops of the mortars and other devices are usually covered with aluminum foil to prevent premature ignition from sparks during the display and to protect them from moisture. The shells and stars easily punch through the aluminum foil when ignited, scattering pieces of aluminum in the vicinity of the launch site. Through various means, the aluminum debris and garbage generated during preparation of the display may be swept into the ocean. Some pieces are immediately incinerated, while others burn totally or partially on their way to the ground. However, some devices will fail to detonate after launch (duds) and fall back to earth/sea as an intact sphere or cylinder. The freefalling projectile could pose a physical risk to any wildlife within the fallout area, but the general avoidance of the area by wildlife during the display and the low odds for such a strike likely present a negligible potential for a direct hit. At times, some shells explode in the mortar tube (referred to as a flower pot) or far below their designed detonation altitude. It is highly unlikely that mobile organisms would remain close enough to the launch site during a fireworks display to be within the effective danger zone for such an explosion.

    Generally, the bulk of the debris will fall to the surface within a 0.5-mi (0.8-km) radius of the launch site; however, small casings from low-level devices (e.g., small cardboard tubes) fall to earth within 200 yards (183 m) from launch site because they do not attain altitudes for greater lateral wind transport. The acute impact area from the center of the ignition point depends on the size and height of the fixed structure, the number and type of special effects, wind direction, atmospheric conditions, and local structures and topography.

    The MBNMS has conducted surveys of solid debris on surface waters, beaches, and subtidal habitat after numerous fireworks displays. They also typically recover substantial uncharred casing remnants on ocean waters immediately after the display. Other items found in the acute impact area are cardboard cylinders, disks, and shell case fragments; paper strips and wadding; plastic wadding, disks, and tubes; aluminum foil; cotton string; and even whole unexploded shells (duds or misfires). In some cases, virtually no fireworks debris is detected. This variance is likely due to several factors, such as type of display, tide state, sea state, and currents and has discovered no visual evidence of acute or chronic impacts to the environment or wildlife. In accordance with permits issued by the MBNMS, the entity conducting fireworks displays are required to clean area beaches for up to 2 days following the display.

    Chemical residue is produced in the form of smoke, airborne particulates, fine solids, and slag (spent chemical waste material that drips from the deployment canister/launcher and cools to a solid form). The fallout area for chemical residue is unknown, but is probably similar to that for solid debris. Similar to aerial shells, the chemical components of low-level devices produce chemical residue that can migrate to ocean waters as a result of fallout. The point of entry would likely be within a small radius (about 300 ft (91 m)) of the launch site. The MBNMS has found only one scientific study directed specifically at the potential impacts of chemical residue from fireworks upon the environment. That study indicates that chemical residues (fireworks decomposition products) do result from fireworks displays and can be measured under certain circumstances (DeBusk et al., 1992). The report, prepared for the Walt Disney Corporation, presented the results of a 10-year study of the impacts of fireworks decomposition products upon an aquatic environment. Researchers studied a small lake in Florida subjected to 2,000 fireworks displays over a 10-year period to measure key chemical levels in the lake. The report concluded that detectable amounts of barium, strontium, and antimony had increased in the lake but not to levels considered harmful to aquatic biota. The report further suggested that “environmental impacts from fireworks decomposition products typically will be negligible in locations that conduct fireworks displays infrequently” and that “the infrequence of fireworks displays at most locations, coupled with a wide dispersion of constituents, make detection of fireworks decomposition products difficult.”

    In summary, debris and chemical residue from fireworks displays authorized by the MBNMS could enter marine mammal habitat. However, the volume at which this would occur, coupled with clean-up requirements, is negligible. As such, NMFS does not anticipate the specified activity would have negative impacts on marine mammal habitat.

    Estimated Take by Incidental Harassment

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines `harassment' as: “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).”

    All anticipated takes would be by Level B harassment, involving temporary changes in behavior such as flushing and cessation of vocalization. The risk of injury, serious injury, and mortality is considered negligible considering the nature of the specified activity and proposed mitigation measures; therefore, no take by Level A harassment is requested by the MBNMS or proposed by NMFS in these regulations.

    The MBNMS anticipates permitting up to 10 fireworks events annually. Based on previous monitoring data and unpublished aerial survey data from the NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center (Lowry 2001, 2012, 2013), the maximum count of marine mammals, by species, was used for each site to identify potential take numbers; therefore, the amount of proposed take is considered conservative. In total, 10 fireworks displays could take up to 3810 California sea lions and 570 harbor seals, annually.

    Table 1—Estimated Potential Incidental Take per Year by Display Area Based on Data Collected During Previous Monitoring Events Display location Time of
  • year
  • Estimated
  • maximum
  • number of
  • events per
  • year
  • Maximum number of animals
  • present per event
  • (total)
  • California sea lions Harbor seals
    Half Moon Bay July 1 100 65 Santa Cruz/Soquel October 1 190 5 Santa Cruz/Seacliff State Beach May 1 5 50 North Monterey Bay July 1 190 50 South Monterey Bay January 1 800 60 South Monterey Bay July 1 1500 60 South Monterey Bay variable 1 800 60 Pacific Grove July 1 150 100 Cambria (Public) July 1 50 60 Cambria (Private) July 1 25 60 Total 10 3810 570
    Proposed Mitigation

    Under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS shall prescribe the “permissible methods of taking by harassment pursuant to such activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on such species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stock for subsistence uses.”

    To ensure that the “least practicable adverse impact” will be achieved, NMFS evaluates mitigation measures in consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, their habitat, and their availability for subsistence uses (latter where relevant); the proven or likely efficacy of the measures; and the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation.

    The MBNMS and NMFS worked to craft a set of mitigation measures designed to minimize fireworks impacts on the marine environment, as well as to outline the locations, frequency, and conditions under which the MBNMS would authorize marine fireworks displays. These mitigation measures, which were successfully implemented under previous NMFS-issued ITAs, include four broad approaches for managing fireworks displays. Note previous ITAs allowed for take incidental to 20 fireworks displays per year while this rule anticipates only 10 firework displays would occur annually.

    • Establish a sanctuary-wide seasonal prohibition to safeguard pinniped reproductive periods. Fireworks events would not be authorized between March 1 and June 30 of any year when the primary reproductive season for pinnipeds occurs.

    • Establish four conditional display areas and prohibit displays along the remaining 95 percent of sanctuary coastal areas. Display areas are located adjacent to urban centers where wildlife is often subject to frequent human disturbances. Remote areas and areas where professional fireworks have not traditionally been conducted would not be considered for fireworks approval. The conditional display areas (described previously in this document) are located at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Peninsula, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek).

    • Displays would be authorized at a frequency equal to or less than one every 2 months in each area with a maximum of 10 displays per year.

    • Fireworks displays would not exceed 30 minutes with the exception of two longer displays per year that will not exceed 1 hour.

    • Implement a ramp-up period, wherein salutes are not allowed in the first 5 minutes of the display;

    • Conduct a post-show debris cleanup for up to two days whereby all debris from the event is removed.

    These mitigation measures are designed to prevent an incremental proliferation of fireworks displays and disturbance throughout the sanctuary and minimize area of impact by confining displays to primary traditional use areas. They also effectively remove fireworks impacts from 95 percent of the Sanctuary's coastal areas, place an annual quota and multiple conditions on the displays authorized within the remaining five percent of the coast, and impose a sanctuary-wide seasonal prohibition on all fireworks displays. These measures were developed to assure the least practicable adverse impact to marine mammals and their habitat.

    Mitigation Conclusions

    NMFS has carefully evaluated the applicant's proposed mitigation measures in the context of ensuring that NMFS prescribes the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected marine mammal species and stocks and their habitat. Our evaluation of potential measures included consideration of the following factors in relation to one another: (1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure is expected to minimize adverse impacts to marine mammals; (2) the proven or likely efficacy of the specific measure to minimize adverse impacts as planned; and (3) the practicability of the measure for applicant implementation.

    Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on marine mammals species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.

    Proposed Monitoring and Reporting

    In order to issue an ITA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA states that NMFS must, where applicable, set forth “requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking”. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for ITAs must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present in the proposed action area.

    Monitoring measures prescribed by NMFS should accomplish one or more of the following general goals:

    1. An increase in the probability of detecting marine mammals, both within the mitigation zone (thus allowing for more effective implementation of the mitigation) and in general to generate more data to contribute to the analyses mentioned below;

    2. An increase in our understanding of how many marine mammals are likely to be exposed to fireworks that we associate with specific adverse effects, such as behavioral harassment;

    3. An increase in our understanding of how marine mammals respond to stimuli expected to result in take and how anticipated adverse effects on individuals (in different ways and to varying degrees) may impact the population, species, or stock (specifically through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival) through any of the following methods:

    • Behavioral observations in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

    • Physiological measurements in the presence of stimuli compared to observations in the absence of stimuli (need to be able to accurately predict received level, distance from source, and other pertinent information);

    • Distribution and/or abundance comparisons in times or areas with concentrated stimuli versus times or areas without stimuli;

    4. An increased knowledge of the affected species; and

    5. An increase in our understanding of the effectiveness of certain mitigation and monitoring measures.

    The MBNMS will conduct a pre-event and post-event census of local marine mammal populations within the fireworks detonation area, including a report identifying if any injured or dead marine mammals are observed during the post-event census. NMFS has worked with the MBNMS to develop an observer reporting form so that data are standardized across events. Reported data include number of individuals, by species, observed prior to display, behavioral observations (if observed during display), number of individuals, by species, after the fireworks event, any observed injured or dead animals, and fireworks event details (e.g., start and end time).

    The MBNMS must submit a draft annual monitoring report to NMFS within 60 days after the conclusion of the calendar year. MBNMS must submit a final annual monitoring report to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If NMFS has no comments, the draft report will be considered to be the final report. In addition, the MBNMS will continue to make its information available to other marine mammal researchers upon request.

    Summary of Previous Monitoring

    A detailed description of marine mammal and acoustic monitoring from 2006-2010 can be found in the Sanctuary's previous proposed incidental take authorization rulemaking (74 FR 19976, April 3, 2012). Here we provide a summary of marine mammals observed during monitoring from 2011-2016 conducted in accordance with the required monitoring and reporting measures contained within that rule and associated LOA.

    Table 2—Incidental Take of California Sea Lions During MBNMS-Authorized Fireworks Displays, 2011-2016 Site California Sea Lion Counts 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Half Moon Bay 0 no event no event no event no event no event. Aptos 0 0 no event no event no event no event. Monterey no event no event no event no event no event no event. Pacific Grove 0 0 0 0 0 1 Cambria 0 0 0 0 no event 0 Capitola no event no event no event 0 0 0 City of Santa Cruz no event no event no event 130 no event 363 Total 0 0 0 130 0 364 Table 3—Incidental Take of Harbor Seals During MBNMS-Authorized Fireworks Displays, 2011-2016 Site Harbor Seal Counts 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Half Moon Bay 0 no event no event no event no event no event. Aptos 0 0 no event no event no event no event. Monterey no event no event no event no event no event no event. Pacific Grove 2 8 11 2 5 18 Cambria 0 0 0 0 no event 0 Capitola no event no event no event 1 0 1 City of Santa Cruz no event no event no event 2 no event 0 Total 2 8 11 5 5 19 Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination

    NMFS has defined egligible impact as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival” (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (i.e., population-level effects). An estimate of the number of takes, alone, is not enough information on which to base an impact determination. In addition to considering the authorized number of marine mammals that might be “taken” through harassment, NMFS considers other factors, such as the likely nature of any responses (e.g., intensity, duration), the context of any responses (e.g., critical reproductive time or location, migration, etc.), as well as effects on habitat, the status of the affected stocks, and the likely effectiveness of the mitigation. Consistent with the 1989 preamble for NMFS's implementing regulations (54 FR 40338; September 29, 1989), the impacts from other past and ongoing anthropogenic activities are incorporated into these analyses via their impacts on the environmental baseline (e.g., as reflected in the regulatory status of the species, population size and growth rate where known, ongoing sources of human-caused mortality, or ambient noise levels).

    Past monitoring by the MBNMS has identified at most only a short-term behavioral disturbance of animals by fireworks displays, with the causes of disturbance being sound effects and light flashes from exploding fireworks. Any takes would be limited to the temporary incidental harassment of California sea lions and harbor seals due to evacuation of usual and accustomed haul-out sites for as little as 15 minutes and as much as 15 hours following any fireworks event. Most animals depart affected haul-out areas at the beginning of the display and return to previous levels of abundance within 4 to 15 hours following the event.

    NMFS has preliminarily determined that the fireworks displays, as described in this document and in MBNMS' application, will result in no more than Level B harassment of small numbers of California sea lions and harbor seals. The effects of coastal fireworks displays are typically limited to short term and localized changes in behavior, including temporary departures from haul-outs to avoid the sight and sound of commercial fireworks. Fireworks displays are limited in duration by MBNMS authorization requirements and would not occur on consecutive days at any fireworks site in the sanctuary. The mitigation measures proposed by MBNMS—and implemented as a component of NMFS' incidental take authorizations since 2005—would further reduce potential impacts. As described previously, these measures ensure that authorized fireworks displays avoid times of importance for breeding, as well as limiting displays to 5 percent of sanctuary coastline that is already heavily used by humans, and generally limiting the overall amount and intensity of activity. No take by injury, serious injury, or mortality is anticipated, and takes by Level B harassment would be at the lowest level practicable due to incorporation of the mitigation measures described previously in this document.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the proposed monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS preliminarily finds that the total marine mammal take from the proposed activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.

    Small Numbers

    As noted above, only small numbers of incidental take may be authorized under Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of the relevant species or stock size in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals.

    Here, NMFS proposes to authorize the take of up to 3,810 California sea lion and 570 harbor seal, annually, incidental to fireworks displays permitted by the MBNMS. As described in the “Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity” section, the population estimate for the California sea lions is 296,750 individuals while the harbor seal population estimate is 30,968 individuals. Therefore, the proposed taking represents 1.2 and 1.8 percent of each stock, respectively.

    Based on the analysis contained herein of the proposed activity (including the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS preliminarily finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.

    Unmitigable Adverse Impact Analysis and Determination

    There are no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks would not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    Adaptive Management

    The regulations governing the take of marine mammals incidental to commercial fireworks authorized by the MBNMS would contain an adaptive management component.

    The reporting requirements associated with this proposed rule are designed to provide NMFS with monitoring data from the previous year to allow consideration of whether any changes are appropriate. The use of adaptive management allows NMFS to consider new information from different sources to determine (with input from the MBNMS regarding practicability), on an annual or biennial basis, if mitigation or monitoring measures should be modified (including additions or deletions). Mitigation measures could be modified if new data suggests that such modifications would have a reasonable likelihood of reducing adverse effects to marine mammals and if the measures are practicable.

    The MBNMS's monitoring program (see “Proposed Monitoring and Reporting”) would be managed adaptively. Changes to the proposed monitoring program may be adopted if they are reasonably likely to better accomplish the MMPA monitoring goals described previously or may better answer the specific questions associated with the MBNMS's monitoring plan.

    The following are some of the possible sources of applicable data to be considered through the adaptive management process: (1) Results from monitoring reports, as required by MMPA authorizations; (2) results from general marine mammal and sound research; and (3) any information which reveals that marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent, or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.

    Endangered Species Act (ESA)

    The MBNMS has not requested, nor is NMFS proposing to authorize, take of marine mammals listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA in these proposed regulations. Therefore, we have determined that section 7 consultation under the ESA is not required.

    National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we have made a preliminary determination that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Information Solicited

    NMFS requests interested persons to submit comments, information, and suggestions concerning the request and the content of the proposed regulations to authorize the taking described herein (see ADDRESSES). All comments will be reviewed and evaluated as we prepare the final rule and make final determinations on whether to issue the requested authorizations. This notice and referenced documents provide all environmental information relating to our proposed action for public review.

    Classification

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. MBNMS is the sole entity that would be subject to the requirements in these proposed regulations, and the MBNMS is not a small governmental jurisdiction, small organization, or small business, as defined by the RFA. Because of this certification, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information requirement subject to the provisions of the PRA because the applicant is a Federal agency.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 217

    Exports, Fish, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine mammals, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seafood, Transportation.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Samuel D. Rauch, III, Acting Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 217 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 217—REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE TAKE OF MARINE MAMMALS INCIDENTAL TO SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES 1. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    2. Revise Subpart B is to read as follows: Subpart B—Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fireworks Displays at Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, CA Sec. 217.11 Specified activity and specified geographical region. 217.12 Effective dates. 217.13 Permissible methods of taking. 217.14 Prohibitions. 217.15 Mitigation. 217.16 Requirements for monitoring and reporting. 217.17 Letters of Authorization. 217.18 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.
    § 217.11 Specified activity and specified geographical region.

    (a) Regulations in this subpart apply only to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and those persons it authorizes to display fireworks within the MBNMS for the taking of marine mammals that occurs in the area described in paragraph (b) of this section and that occurs incidental to authorization of commercial fireworks displays.

    (b) The taking of marine mammals by MBNMS may be authorized in a Letter of Authorization (LOA) only if it occurs in the MBNMS.

    § 217.12 Effective dates.

    Regulations in this subpart are effective from July 4, 2017, through July 3, 2022.

    § 217.13 Permissible methods of taking.

    (a) Under LOAs issued pursuant to § 216.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter, the Holder of the LOA (hereinafter “MBNMS”) may incidentally, but not intentionally, take marine mammals within the area described in § 217.11(b) of this chapter, provided the activity is in compliance with all terms, conditions, and requirements of the regulations in this subpart and the appropriate LOA.

    (b) Reserved.

    § 217.14 Prohibitions.

    Notwithstanding takings contemplated in § 217.11 of this chapter and authorized by an LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter, no person in connection with the activities described in § 217.11 of this chapter may:

    (a) Violate, or fail to comply with, the terms, conditions, and requirements of this subpart or an LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter;

    (b) Take any marine mammal not specified in such LOAs;

    (c) Take any marine mammal specified in such LOAs other than by incidental, unintentional Level B harassment;

    (d) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if such taking results in more than a negligible impact on the species or stocks of such marine mammal; or

    (e) Take a marine mammal specified in such LOAs if such taking results in an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.

    § 217.15 Mitigation.

    (a) When conducting the activities identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter, the mitigation measures contained in any LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter must be implemented. These mitigation measures include but are not limited to:

    (1) Limiting the location of the authorized fireworks displays to the four specifically designated areas at Half Moon Bay, the Santa Cruz/Soquel area, the northeastern Monterey Breakwater, and Cambria (Santa Rosa Creek);

    (2) Limiting the frequency of authorized fireworks displays to no more than an average frequency less than or equal to once every two months in each of the four prescribed areas;

    (3) Limiting the duration of authorized individual fireworks displays to no longer than 30 minutes each, with the exception of two longer shows per year not to exceed 1 hour;

    (4) Prohibiting fireworks displays at MBNMS between March 1 and June 30 of any year; and

    (5) Continuing to implement authorization requirements and general and special restrictions for each event, as determined by MBNMS. Standard requirements include, but are not limited to, the use of a ramp-up period, wherein salutes are not allowed in the first five minutes of the display; the removal of plastic and aluminum labels and wrappings; and post-show reporting and cleanup. MBNMS shall continue to assess displays and restrict the number of aerial salute effects on a case-by-case basis, and shall implement general and special restrictions unique to each fireworks event as necessary.

    (b) [Reserved]

    § 217.16 Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (a) MBNMS is responsible for ensuring that all monitoring required under an LOA is conducted appropriately, including, but not limited to:

    (1) Counts of pinnipeds in the impact area prior to and after all displays (counts should be made as close to the start of the display as possible but no sooner than 24 hours before the display and at comparable tide stage as the fireworks display), and

    (2) Reporting to NMFS of all marine mammal injury, serious injury, or mortality encountered during debris cleanup the morning after each fireworks display.

    (b) Unless specified otherwise in the LOA, MBNMS must submit a draft annual monitoring report to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, no later than 60 days after the conclusion of each calendar year. This report must contain:

    (1) An estimate of the number of marine mammals disturbed by the authorized activities,

    (2) Results of the monitoring required in § 217.16(a) of this chapter, and any additional information required by the LOA. A final annual monitoring report must be submitted to NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final annual monitoring report.

    (c) A draft comprehensive monitoring report on all marine mammal monitoring conducted during the period of these regulations must be submitted to the Director, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS at least 120 days prior to expiration of these regulations. A final comprehensive monitoring report must be submitted to the NMFS within 30 days after receiving comments from NMFS on the draft report. If no comments are received from NMFS, the draft report will be considered to be the final comprehensive monitoring report.

    § 217.17 Letters of Authorization.

    (a) To incidentally take marine mammals pursuant to these regulations, the MBNMS must apply for and obtain an LOA.

    (b) An LOA, unless suspended or revoked, may be effective for a period of time not to exceed the expiration date of these regulations.

    (c) In the event of projected changes to the activity or to mitigation and monitoring measures required by an LOA, the MBNMS must apply for and obtain a modification of the LOA as described in § 217.18 of this chapter.

    (d) The LOA shall set forth:

    (1) Permissible methods of incidental taking;

    (2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (i.e., mitigation) on the species, its habitat, and on the availability of the species for subsistence uses; and

    (3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.

    (e) Issuance of the LOA shall be based on a determination that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under these regulations.

    (f) Notice of issuance or denial of an LOA shall be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of a determination.

    § 217.18 Renewals and Modifications of Letters of Authorization.

    (a) An LOA issued under § 216.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter shall be renewed or modified upon request by the applicant, provided that: (1) The proposed specified activity and mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures, as well as the anticipated impacts, are the same as those described and analyzed for these regulations (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in § 217.18(c)(1) of this chapter), and (2) NMFS determines that the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures required by the previous LOA under these regulations were implemented.

    (b) For LOA modification or renewal requests by the applicant that include changes to the activity or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting (excluding changes made pursuant to the adaptive management provision in § 217.18(c)(1) of this chapter) that do not change the findings made for the regulations or result in no more than a minor change in the total estimated number of takes (or distribution by species or years), NMFS may publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register, including the associated analysis illustrating the change, and solicit public comment before issuing the LOA .

    (c) An LOA issued under § 217.106 and § 217.17 of this chapter for the activity identified in § 217.11(a) of this chapter may be modified by NMFS under the following circumstances:

    (1) Adaptive Management—NMFS may modify (including augment) the existing mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures (after consulting with MBNMS regarding the practicability of the modifications) if doing so creates a reasonable likelihood of more effectively accomplishing the goals of the mitigation and monitoring set forth in the preamble for these regulations.

    (i) Possible sources of data that could contribute to the decision to modify the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in an LOA:

    (A) Results from the MBNMS's monitoring from the previous year(s).

    (B) Results from other marine mammal and/or sound research or studies.

    (C) Any information that reveals marine mammals may have been taken in a manner, extent or number not authorized by these regulations or subsequent LOAs.

    (ii) If, through adaptive management, the modifications to the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures are substantial, NMFS will publish a notice of proposed LOA in the Federal Register and solicit public comment.

    (2) Emergencies—If NMFS determines that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of marine mammals specified in an LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 and 217.17 of this chapter, an LOA may be modified without prior notice or opportunity for public comment. The Notice would be published in the Federal Register within 30 days of the action.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05227 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 51 Friday, March 17, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS-CN-17-0012] Tobacco Report: Notice of Request for an Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension of the currently approved information collection for Tobacco Report (OMB No. 0581-0004).

    DATES:

    Comments received by May 16, 2017 will be considered.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted to the addresses specified below. All comments will be made available to the public. Please do not include personally identifiable information (such as name, address, or other contact information) or confidential business information that you do not want publically disclosed. All comments may be posted on the Internet and can be retrieved by most Internet search engines. Comments may be submitted anonymously.

    Comments, identified by AMS-CN-17-0012, may be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments. In addition, comments may be submitted by mail or hand delivery to Cotton Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406. Comments should be submitted in triplicate. All comments received will be made available for public inspection at Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406. A copy of this document may be found at: www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia, 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Tobacco Report.

    OMB Number: 0581-0004.

    Expiration Date of Approval: May 31, 2017.

    Type of Request: Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection.

    Abstract: The Tobacco Statistics Act of 1929 (7 U.S.C. 501-508) provides for the collection and publication of tobacco statistics by USDA with regard to quantities of leaf tobacco in all forms in the United States and Puerto Rico, owned by or in the possession of dealers, manufacturers, and others, with the exception of the original growers of the tobacco.

    Inventory information about different tobacco products is reported on a quarterly basis, as of January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1 of each year, and is due within 15 days of those dates.

    The information furnished under the provisions of this Act is used only for the statistical purposes for which it is supplied. No publication shall be made by USDA whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment can be identified, nor shall anyone other than the sworn employees of USDA be allowed to examine the individual reports.

    The regulations governing the Tobacco Stocks and Standards Act (7 CFR part 30) issued under the Tobacco Statistics Act (7 U.S.C. 501-508) specifically address the reporting requirements. Tobacco in leaf form or stems is reported by types of tobacco and whether it is stemmed or unstemmed. Tobacco in sheet form is segregated as to whether it is to be used for cigar wrappers, cigar binders, for cigarettes, or for other products.

    Tobacco stocks reporting is mandatory. The basic purpose of the information collection is to ascertain the total supply of unmanufactured tobacco available to domestic manufacturers and to calculate the amount consumed in manufactured tobacco products.

    The Quarterly Report of Manufacture and Sales of Snuff, Smoking and Chewing Tobacco is voluntary. Information on the manufacture and sale of snuff, smoking and chewing tobacco products is available from Treasury Department publications based on the collection of taxes, but not in the detail desired by the industry. All major tobacco manufacturers agreed to furnish information to AMS for this report.

    The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) directs and authorizes USDA to collect, tabulate and disseminate statistics on marketing agricultural products including market supplies, storage stocks, quantity, quality, condition of such products in various positions in the marketing channel, utilization of sub-products, shipments, and unloads.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.87 hours per response.

    Respondents: Primarily tobacco dealers and manufacturers, including small businesses or organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 30.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 120.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 4.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 104.

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Shethir M. Riva, Director, Research and Promotion, Cotton and Tobacco Program, AMS, USDA, 100 Riverside Parkway, Suite 101, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22406, telephone (540) 361-2726, facsimile (540) 361-1199, or email at [email protected]

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

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05297 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Missouri River Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Missouri River Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Helena, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: www.fs.fed.us/r1/helena/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on April 10, 2017, at 6:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the supervisor's office for the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest (NF) Supervisor's Office, Elk/Tizer Meeting Room, 2880 Skyway Drive, Helena, Montana.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Helena-Lewis and Clark NF Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-791-7754 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Select a chairperson,

    2. Approve operating guidelines, and

    3. Review and make reccomendations on projects proposals for Title II funds.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by April 3, 2017, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Dave Cunningham, RAC Coordinator, 1220 38th Street, Great Falls, Montana, 59405; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to (406) 731-5302.

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

    Dated: March 2, 2017. Jeanne M. Higgins, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05295 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Economic Development Administration Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance AGENCY:

    Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and Opportunity for Public Comment.

    Pursuant to Section 251 of the Trade Act 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2341 et seq.), the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has received petitions for certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance from the firms listed below. Accordingly, EDA has initiated investigations to determine whether increased imports into the United States of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by each of these firms contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of the firm's workers, or threat thereof, and to a decrease in sales or production of each petitioning firm.

    List of Petitions Received by EDA for Certification Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance [3/8/2017 through 3/13/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted for investigation Product(s) Atlantic Fluid Power, Inc. d/b/a Atlantic Industrial Technologies, Inc 90 Precision Drive, Shirley, NY 11967 3/10/2017 The firm manufactures custom controls and hydraulic systems. Pierce Industries, LLC 465 Pierce, Industries, LLC, Rochester, NY 14624 3/10/2017 The firm manufactures cylindrical rollers, re-manufacturing and assembly of printing machines, coatings. Fiberplex Technologies, LLC 10840-412 Guilford Road, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701 3/13/2017 The firm manufactures an array of video, Ethernet, and audio to fiber conversion products.

    Any party having a substantial interest in these proceedings may request a public hearing on the matter. A written request for a hearing must be submitted to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms Division, Room 71030, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230, no later than ten (10) calendar days following publication of this notice.

    Please follow the requirements set forth in EDA's regulations at 13 CFR 315.9 for procedures to request a public hearing. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance official number and title for the program under which these petitions are submitted is 11.313, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms.

    Miriam Kearse, Lead Program Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05324 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Order Denying Export Privileges In the Matter of Eyad Farah, Inmate Number: 63001-018, FCI Fort Worth, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 15330, Fort Worth, TX 76119.

    On December 15, 2015, in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Eyad Farah (“Farah”), was convicted of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”). Specifically, Farah knowingly and willfully attempted to export from the United States a defense article on the U.S. Munitions List without having first obtained a license from the Department of State or written prior authorization for such export. Farah was sentenced to 37 months in prison, with credit for time served, 36 months of supervised release, and a $300 assessment.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. § 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. § 2778).” 15 CFR § 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. § 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR § 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. § 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The Regulations issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act (50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov)). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52,587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2006 & Supp. IV 2010)).

    BIS has received notice of Farah's conviction for violating the AECA, and has provided notice and an opportunity for Farah to make a written submission to BIS, as provided in Section 766.25 of the Regulations. BIS has not received a submission from Farah.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Farah's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of five years from the date of Farah's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Farah had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered:

    First, from the date of this Order until December 15, 2020, Eyad Farah, with a last known address of Inmate Number: 63001-018, FCI Fort Worth, Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 15330, Fort Worth, TX 76119, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Farah by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Farah may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Farah. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until December 15, 2020.

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05356 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-843] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On October 14, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain lined paper products (CLPP) from India. The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2014, through August 31, 2015. This review covers two mandatory respondents, Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited (Kokuyo Riddhi) and Navneet Education Limited (Navneet). For these final results, we find that neither Kokuyo Riddhi nor Navneet made sales below normal value during the POR. See the “Final Results of the Review” section below.

    DATES:

    Effective March 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cindy Robinson for Navneet and George McMahon for Kokuyo Riddhi, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3797 or (202) 482-1167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On September 7, 2016, Petitioner submitted new factual information regarding Navneet's U.S. sales data.1 Given the timing of the submission, the Department could not address this new factual information in the Preliminary Results. 2 The Department invited interested parties to submit comments no later than October 24, 2016,3 and to submit follow-up comments as part of their case and rebuttal briefs no later than November 14, 2016, and November 21, 2016, respectively.4 On October 24, 2016, Navneet submitted comments on the new factual information.5 On November 3, 2016, Petitioner submitted rebuttal comments regarding the new factual information.6

    1See Petitioner's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: General New Factual Information Submission,” dated September 7, 2016.

    2See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 71046 (October 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, titled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from India; 2014-2015,” dated October 5, 2016 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at: http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html.

    3See Letter titled, “Filings by the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioners) and Navneet Education Ltd. (Navneet) Concerning Navneet's Alleged Under Reporting of U.S. Sales,” dated September 27, 2016.

    4See Letter titled, “New Factual Information Filed by the Association of American School Paper Suppliers (Petitioner) and Extension of Deadline to Submit New Factual Information Pertaining to Navneet Education Ltd.'s (Navneet) Sales Reporting,” dated September 27, 2016.

    5See Navneet's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Response of Navneet Education Limited to Non-Reported Sales Allegation,” dated October 24, 2016.

    6See Petitioner's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Response Comments to Navneet's New Factual Information Related to Unreported U.S. Sales; Extension Request for the Case Briefs,” dated November 3, 2016.

    On October 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results. On November 14, 2016, Kokuyo Riddhi 7 and Navneet timely submitted their case briefs.8 On November 21, 2016, Navneet submitted its rebuttal brief.9 On November 14, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for a hearing, which it subsequently withdrew on December, 15, 2016.10 On February 6, 2017, the Department postponed the final results by 30 days, until March 13, 2017.11

    7 The Department has determined that Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited (Kokuyo Riddhi) is the successor-in-interest to Riddhi Enterprises. See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 18373 (April 6, 2015) (Final Results of CCR—Kokuyo Riddhi), and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. Accordingly, we refer to Kokuyo Riddhi and Riddhi Enterprises as Kokuyo Riddhi in this review.

    8See Kokuyo Riddhi's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Kokuyo Riddhi Case Brief,” dated November 14, 2016; see also Navneet's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Case Brief of Navneet Education Limited,” dated November 14, 2016; see also Petitioner's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Case Brief,” dated November 14, 2016.

    9See Navneet's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Rebuttal Brief of Navneet Education Limited,” dated November 21, 2016.

    10See Petitioner's letter titled, “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Hearing Request,” dated November 14, 2016; see also Memorandum to the File titled, “Petitioner's Request for a Meeting in Lieu of a Hearing,” dated December 19, 2016.

    11See Memorandum titled “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015,” dated February 3, 2017. Postponing the final results by 30 days would place the deadline on Sunday, March 12, 2017. The Department's practice dictates that where a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday, the appropriate deadline is the next business day. See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain lined paper products. The merchandise subject to this order is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4811.90.9035, 4811.90.9080, 4820.30.0040, 4810.22.5044, 4811.90.9050, 4811.90.9090, 4820.10.2010, 4820.10.2020, 4820.10.2030, 4820.10.2040, 4820.10.2050, 4820.10.2060, and 4820.10.4000. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written product description remains dispositive.12

    12 For a complete description of the Scope of the Order, see Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and 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 in the Central Records Unit (CRU), room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we made the following company-specific changes to Navneet's final margin calculation: (1) We made changes to the SAS Comparison Market and Margin Programs for the beginning date for U.S. sales; (2) we corrected the margin program by applying the U.S. dollar denomination for the duty drawback credit; and (3) we corrected the comparison market program by applying the net quantity NTQTY2H, net of returns, as the home market sales quantity. We also corrected the draft liquidation instructions for both Navneet and Kokuyo Riddhi. As a result of these changes, the weighted-average dumping margin for Navneet and the non-selected companies has changed.

    Final Results of the Review

    As a result of this review, the Department calculated a dumping margin of zero for both Kokuyo Riddhi and Navneet. We are applying to the non-selected companies the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents in these final results, as referenced below.13

    13See Albemarle Corp. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 821 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Albemarle).

    Producer/exporter Weighted
  • -average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Kokuyo Riddhi Paper Products Private Limited 0.00 Navneet Education Ltd 0.00 Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited 0.00 Magic International Pvt. Ltd 0.00 Marisa International (Marisa) 0.00 Pioneer Stationery Pvt Ltd (Pioneer) 0.00 SGM Paper Products 0.00
    Duty Assessment

    The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.14 Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, because the above-listed respondents' weighted-average dumping margins are zero, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.15 We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    14 In these Final Results, the Department applied the assessment rate calculation method adopted in Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    15Id., 77 FR at 8102.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 3.91 percent, the all-others rate established in the original antidumping duty investigation.16 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    16See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined Paper Products from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China; and Notice of Countervailing Duty Orders: Certain Lined Paper Products from India and Indonesia, 71 FR 56949 (September 28, 2006) (CLPP Order).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

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

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

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

    Dated: March 13, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Comments III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Analysis of Comments Comments Concerning Navneet 1. Completeness and Accuracy of the Reported U.S. Sales Data 2. Adjustment for the Beginning Date of U.S. Sales in the Margin Program 3. Adjustment for Unreimbursed Indian Excise Tax Credit 4. Revision to Duty Drawback Denomination in the SAS Margin Program 5. Revision to Incorrect Quantity (QTYH) in the SAS Comparison Market Program 6. Revision to Importer-Specific Rates in the Liquidation Instructions Comment Concerning Kokuyo Riddhi 7. Inclusion of a Customer Name in Kokuyo Riddhi's Liquidation Instructions VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-05357 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF292 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 meeting of its Skate 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 Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Wentworth by the Sea, 588 Wentworth Road, New Castle, NH 03854; telephone: (603) 422-7322.

    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 Committee will review public comments regarding limited access in Amendment 5 to the Skate Fishery Management Plan. The panel will have a discussion of limited access, including potential future steps and control dates as well as a discussion of upcoming specifications framework, including removing the prohibition of landing barndoor skate. Other business, as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. 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.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05359 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF291 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 meeting of its Skate Advisory Panel on Monday, April 3, 2017 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, April 3, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Wentworth by the Sea, 588 Wentworth Road, New Castle, NH 03854; telephone: (603) 422-7322.

    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 Advisory Panel will review public comments regarding limited access in Amendment 5 to the Skate Fishery Management Plan. The panel will have a discussion of limited access, including potential future steps and control dates as well as a discussion of upcoming specifications framework, including removing the prohibition of landing barndoor skate. Other business, as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. 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.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05358 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF294 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 meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel 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 Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 10 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Wentworth by the Sea, 588 Wentworth Road, New Castle, NH 03854; telephone: (781) 245-9300.

    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 Advisory Panel will discuss alternatives being considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan. Measures include alternative Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rules and measures to address potential localized depletion and user conflicts in the herring fishery. The Panel may recommend a final range of alternatives for the Committee to consider the following day. The panel will also review preliminary outcomes from the external peer review of the Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic herring ABC control rules held in March 2017. The Panel will also review the proposed action for the herring fishery in the Omnibus Industry Funded Monitoring (IFM) Amendment and make any necessary clarifications or adjustments. Other business will be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. This meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request. 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.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05361 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF295 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a four-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 3 through Thursday, April 6, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will take place at the Hyatt Regency Birmingham—The Winfrey Hotel, located at 1000 Riverchase Galleria, Birmingham, AL 35244; telephone: (205) 705-1234.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Gregory, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Monday, April 3, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m.

    The Law Enforcement Committee will meet in a CLOSED SESSION, to select the 2016 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Recipient; the Advisory Panel Selection Committee will meet in a FULL COUNCIL—CLOSED SESSION to discuss appointments to the Coastal Migratory Pelagics Advisory Panel; and the Data Collection Management Committee will receive a presentation from the Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) on Recreational Data Procedures and discuss MRIP Percent Standard Error (PSE) Methods and Protocols.

    After lunch, the Joint Coral/Habitat Protection & Restoration Committees will review scoping workshop summaries for Coral Amendment 7; the Sustainable Fisheries Committee will discuss the effectiveness of techniques to reduce Barotrauma Effects, and will review a white paper on Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Revisions and Framework Procedures; the Spiny Lobster Committee will review Spiny Lobster Regulatory Amendment 4; and, the Administrative/Budget Committee will review grant expenditures and anticipated budget activities and funding, approve changes to check writing procedures and review H.R. 200 (MSA Reauthorization) potential impacts.

    Tuesday, April 4, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Reef Fish Management Committee will review projections for the 2017 Federal Recreational Fishing Seasons and discuss State Seasons, discuss Final Action items: Amendment 36A—Modifications to Commercial Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs, Amendment 46—Gray Triggerfish Rebuilding Plan, Framework Action—Mutton Snapper Annual Catch Limits (ACL) and Management Measures and Gag Commercial Size Limit, and Framework Action to Adjust Greater Amberjack Acceptable Catch Limit (ACL) and stock assessment update. The committee will review public hearing draft for Amendment 47—Modify Vermillion Snapper ACLs and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) proxy. The committee will discuss SEDAR 49—Stock Assessment Results for Data-Limited Stocks, and Charter For-Hire Management. The committee will review SERO/SEFSC responses to documentation requested by Gulf Angler Fishing Group; and receive a summary from the Standing and Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC).

    Wednesday, April 5, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.

    The Shrimp Management Committee will discuss the biological review of the Texas Closures; review updated stock assessments for brown, white and pink shrimp, and SSC report; receive a summary from the Shrimp Advisory Panel meeting; and discuss final action on Shrimp Amendment 17B—Yield, Threshold Number of Permits and Transit Provisions.

    The Full Council will convene mid-morning (approximately 10:15 a.m.) with a Call to Order, Announcements, Introductions; Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes; and review of Exempt Fishing Permit (EFPs) Applications, if any. The Council will receive presentations on Lenfest Ecosystem Task Force, and Alabama Law Enforcement. After lunch, the Council will receive public testimony from 1:30 p.m. until 5 p.m. on the following agenda testimony items: Final Action on Reef Fish Amendment 46—Modify the Gray Triggerfish Rebuilding Plan, Final Action on Reef Fish Amendment 36A—Modifications to the Commercial Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Programs, Final Action on Shrimp Amendment 17B—Yield, Threshold Number of Permits, and Transit Provisions, Final Action on Framework Action—Modify Mutton Snapper ACL and Management Measures and the Commercial Gag Minimum Size Limit, and Final Action—Framework Action to increase Greater Amberjack Annual Catch Limits; and, hold an open public testimony period regarding any other fishery issues or concern. Anyone wishing to speak during public comment should sign in at the registration station located at the entrance to the meeting room.

    Thursday, April 6, 2017; 8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.

    Full Council will receive committee reports from Shrimp, Reef Fish, Joint Coral/Habitat Protection & Restoration, Spiny Lobster, Administrative/Budget, Data Collection, and the Sustainable Fisheries Management Committees. The Council will announce the 2016 Law Enforcement Officer of the Year; vote on Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) applications, if any; and receive updates from the following supporting agencies: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and, the Department of State.

    Lastly, the Council will discuss any Other Business items.

    —Meeting Adjourns

    The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue. The latest version will be posted on the Council's file server, which can be accessed by going to the Council's Web site at http://www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on FTP Server under Quick Links. For meeting materials, select the “Briefing Books/Briefing Book 2017-04” folder on Gulf Council file server. The username and password are both “gulfguest”. The meetings will be webcast over the internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council 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 that 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 Kathy Pereira (see ADDRESSES) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05360 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Evaluation of State Coastal Management Programs AGENCY:

    Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management will hold a public meeting to solicit comments on the performance evaluation of the Maine Coastal Management Program. Written comments on the performance evaluation will also be accepted.

    DATES:

    Maine Coastal Management Program Evaluation: The public meeting will be held on May 3, 2017, and written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.

    For specific dates, times, and locations of the public meetings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the performance evaluation of the Maine Coastal Management Program.by any of the following methods:

    Public Meeting and Oral Comments: A public meeting will be held in Wiscasset, Maine. For the specific location, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    Written Comments: Please direct written comments to Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or email comments [email protected] Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carrie Hall, Evaluator, Planning and Performance Measurement Program, Office for Coastal Management, NOS/NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, 11th Floor, N/OCM1, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, or [email protected] Copies of the most recent progress report, previous evaluation findings, and 2016-2020 Assessment and Strategy may be viewed and downloaded on the Internet at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/evaluations.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires NOAA to conduct periodic evaluations of federally approved state and territorial coastal programs. The process includes one or more public meetings, consideration of written public comments and consultations with interested Federal, state, and local agencies and members of the public. During the evaluation, NOAA will consider the extent to which the state has met the national objectives, adhered to the management program approved by the Secretary of Commerce, and adhered to the terms of financial assistance under the CZMA. When the evaluation is completed, NOAA's Office for Coastal Management will place a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of the Final Evaluation Findings.

    Specific information on the periodic evaluation of the state and territorial coastal program that is the subject of this notice is detailed below as follows:

    Maine Coastal Management Program Evaluation

    You may participate or submit oral comments at the public meeting scheduled as follows:

    Date: May 3, 2017.

    Time: 5:00 p.m., local time.

    Location: Offices of the Lincoln County Regional Planning Commission, 297 Bath Road (US Route 1), Wicasset, Maine.

    Written public comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017.

    (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration) Dated: March 10, 2017. Paul M. Scholz, Deputy Director, Office for Coastal Management, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05249 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF217 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Application for an Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of an exempted fishing permit (EFP) application for 2017 and 2018 that would continue work done in 2015 and 2016, and is considering issuance of EFPs for vessels participating in the EFP fishery. The EFPs would be effective no earlier than April 3, 2017, and would expire no later than December 31, 2018, but could be terminated earlier under terms and conditions of the EFPs and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., local time on April 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by 0648-XF217, by any one of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 206-526-6736, Attn: Benjamin Mann.

    Mail: Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, Attn: Benjamin Mann.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benjamin Mann (West Coast Region, NMFS), phone: 206-526-6117, fax: 206-526-6736.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This action is authorized by the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions at 50 CFR 600.745, which states that EFPs may be used to authorize fishing activities that would otherwise be prohibited. At the June 2016 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting in Tacoma, WA, the Council considered an EFP application from the San Francisco Community Fishing Association and Dan Platt. An opportunity for public testimony was provided during the Council meeting. For more details on this EFP application and to view a copy of the application, see the Council's Web site at www.pcouncil.org and browse the November 2016 Briefing Book. The Council recommended that NMFS consider issuing the following EFP, and that this EFP be issued for 2 years. The 2-year duration is intended to coincide with the 2017-2018 biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. Therefore, to reduce the administrative burden of issuing annual EFPs during the 2-year management cycle, NMFS is considering issuing the EFP described below for a 2-year period. The EFP issued for this 2-year period would expire no later than December 31, 2018, but could be terminated earlier under terms and conditions of the EFP and other applicable laws.

    Commercial Yellowtail EFP

    The San Francisco Community Fishing Association and Dan Platt submitted an application to continue their 2016-2017 EFP work for two more years. The primary purpose of the EFP is to test a commercial hook and line gear to target underutilized yellowtail rockfish, while keeping bycatch of overfished species low. The current application includes changes from the previous EFP including: (1) Extension of the southern boundary from Point San Pedro (37°35′ N. lat.) to Point Conception (34°27′ N. lat.); (2) addition of 3 vessels to the EFP (7 total); and (3) federal observer coverage requirement of 30 percent (trips not observed would be self-reported). The EFPs are necessary to allow activities that are otherwise prohibited by Federal regulations.

    After review of the final proposal, NMFS has concerns with the proposed reduced observer coverage. NMFS has historically relied on 100 percent observer coverage to collect and maintain data critical to evaluating the feasibility of new fisheries management strategies. NMFS has never issued a groundfish EFP without 100 percent coverage. Further, the proposed extension of the southern boundary would extend the fishery into waters where no baseline data exists; highlighting the need to obtain data for management purposes that has historically be collected by observers. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center has indicated that they may be able to provide for some additional observer coverage, working with the applicants. NMFS is considering, but has not yet approved, using some electronic monitoring in lieu of observers. NMFS is inviting comments on these issues.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05351 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date is April 16, 2017.

    ADDRESS:

    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 12/30/2016 (81 FR 96442-96443), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products 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 organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products 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 products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

    PRODUCTS: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6530-00-NIB-0209—Hot Pack, Instant, Disposable, 6″ x 8″ 6530-00-NIB-0217—Cold Pack, Instant, Disposable, 5″ x 6″ 6530-00-NIB-0219—Cold Pack, Instant, Disposable, 5″ x 7″ 6530-00-NIB-0221—Cold Pack, Instant, Disposable, 6″ x 8.75″ 6530-00-NIB-0222—Hot Pack, Instant, Disposable, 5″ x 6″ 6530-00-NIB-0223—Hot Pack, Instant, Disposable, 5″ x 7″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Central Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Utica, NY Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Distribution: B-List Deletions

    On 2/10/2017 (82 FR 10337-10338), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer 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 additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products 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 products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-576-0094—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XS 8415-01-576-0100—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, ML 8415-01-576-0104—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, LR 8415-01-576-0111—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, LL 8415-01-576-0116—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XLR 8415-01-576-0122—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XLL 8415-01-576-0152—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XXLL 8415-01-576-0157—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XXXLR 8415-01-576-0165—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Desert Camouflage, XXXLL 8415-01-576-0234—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XS 8415-01-576-0237—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, SR 8415-01-576-0238—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, MR 8415-01-576-0243—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, ML 8415-01-576-1966—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, LR 8415-01-576-1967—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, LL 8415-01-576-1970—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XL 8415-01-576-1974—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XLL 8415-01-576-1977—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XXL 8415-01-576-1980—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XXLL 8415-01-576-1982—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XXXL 8415-01-576-1985—Jacket, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Men's, Woodland Camouflage, XXXLL 8415-01-576-5763—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XS 8415-01-576-5957—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, SR 8415-01-576-5962—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, MR 8415-01-576-5967—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, ML 8415-01-576-7101—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, LR 8415-01-576-7169—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, LL 8415-01-576-7515—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XL 8415-01-576-7517—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XLL 8415-01-576-7692—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XXL 8415-01-576-7695—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XXLL 8415-01-576-7697—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XXXL 8415-01-576-7714—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Desert Camouflage, XXXLL 8415-01-576-7827—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XS 8415-01-576-7845—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, SR 8415-01-576-8002—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, MR 8415-01-576-8003—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, ML 8415-01-576-8024—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, LR 8415-01-576-8026—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, LL 8415-01-576-8083—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XL 8415-01-576-8091—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XLL 8415-01-576-8101—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XXL 8415-01-576-8107—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XXLL 8415-01-576-8109—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XXXL 8415-01-576-8114—Pants, Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Woodland Camouflage, XXLLL 8415-01-543-0375—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XS 8415-01-543-0378—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, S 8415-01-543-0380—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, M 8415-01-543-0385—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, L-L 8415-01-543-0389—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XL 8415-01-543-0390—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XL-L 8415-01-543-0395—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXLL 8415-01-543-0398—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXLL 8415-01-543-0400—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXXL 8415-01-543-0402—Trousers, Lightweight ECWCS Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXXLL 8415-01-543-0416—Trousers, Lightweight Level 6, ECWCS, PCU, Army, Green, L 8415-01-543-7004—Trousers, Wet Weather Level 6 ECWCS, PCU, Army, Green, M-L 8415-01-543-0417—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XS 8415-01-543-0421—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, S 8415-01-543-0422—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, M 8415-01-543-0424—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, L-L 8415-01-543-0428—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, L 8415-01-543-0430—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XL-L 8415-01-543-0431—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XL 8415-01-543-0434—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXLL 8415-01-543-0437—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXL 8415-01-543-0439—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXXL 8415-01-543-0440—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, XXXLL 8415-01-543-7038—Jacket, Parka, Lightweight Extreme Cold Wet Weather Level 6, PCU, Army, Green, M-L Mandatory for: ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05363 Filed 3-16-17; 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 April 16, 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:

    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): 4910-00-251-6981—Creeper, Mechanics Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Quadco Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (Northwest Products Division), Stryker, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-576-7524—Hood, Lightweight, Performance, Fire Resistant, Type I, Army, Unisex, Green Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Southeastern Kentucky Rehabilitation Industries, Inc., Corbin, KY Dawn Enterprises, Inc., Blackfoot, ID Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5120-00-106-7598—Jack, Scissors, Hand Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Employment Source, Inc., Fayetteville, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8110-01-443-8476—Tube, Mailing, 36″ x 3″ 8110-01-443-8480—Tube, Mailing, 24″ x 3″ 8110-00-244-7435—Tube, Mailing, 24″ x 2″ 8110-00-291-0344—Tube, Mailing and Filing, 30″ x 1-1/2″ 8110-00-291-0345—Tube, Mailing, 36″ x 2″ 8110-00-291-0346—Tube, Mailing, 42″ x 2″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Challenge Enterprises of North FL., Inc., Green Cove Springs, FL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Amy B. Jensen, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05364 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Application Instructions for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. These instructions combine the previously approved SIF Application Instructions (OMB Control Number 3045-0155) and SIF Pay for Success Application Instructions (OMB Control Number 3045-0167) into one document. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Lois Nembhard, SIF Director (Acting) at 202-606-3223 or email to [email protected]. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, within April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register:

    (1) By fax to: 202-395-6974, Attention: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; or

    (2) By email to: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

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

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

    • Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments

    A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2016 at 81 FR 94342. This comment period ended February 21, 2017. No public comments were received from this Notice.

    Description: Comment request.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: Social Innovation Fund (SIF) Application Instructions.

    OMB Number: TBD.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: Organizations applying for funding by the Social Innovation Fund.

    Total Respondents: 50.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 24 hours.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1,200.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Lois Nembhard, Director (Acting), Social Innovation Fund.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05312 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0001] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    US Army Medical Command, Family Advocacy Program Office, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Army Family Advocacy Program Office, US Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by May 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the U.S. Army Medical Command, Health Policy & Services, Behavioral Health Service Line, Family Advocacy Program (ATTN: MCHO-CL-H/Ms. Kathleen Foreman), 2748 Worth Road, JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234; or call the Point of Contact for U.S. Army Medical Command, Family Advocacy Program Office at 210-295-7370 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Family Advocacy Program; MEDCOM Form 811-Pilot (Behavioral Health Intake-Psychosocial History and Assessment); OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record the behavioral/mental health, psychological and social history of military health eligible and non-eligible beneficiaries in need of domestic violence and child abuse emergency and non-emergency support. The form is used by family advocacy workers to assess the clinical and non-clinical needs of individuals and families to ensure victim safety; reduce the risk of adverse behavioral health events like suicide, homicide, accidental death, and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse and neglect; refer victims and alleged offenders to appropriate treatment and case management resources; to gather case information for presentation and incident determination by a family advocacy review board; and to gather information for data analysis and reporting purposes for overall program improvement.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 3,950.

    Number of Respondents: 7,900.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 7,900.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are U.S. citizens (military, civilian, and military-affiliated civilians; spouses, intimate partners; child care providers; teachers) or foreign nationals seeking emergency and non-emergency support from military health care facilities, child care facilities, and DoD school systems who are seeking domestic violence or child abuse support for themselves or their children. MEDCOM Form 811-Pilot records the information needed to conduct a thorough and responsible risk assessment, behavioral health assessment, treatment plan, and case monitoring or management plan. The completed form is included in the Family Advocacy Case file and in Family Advocacy System of Records (information system). The form is used by family advocacy workers to assess the clinical and non-clinical needs of individuals and families to ensure victim safety; reduce the risk of adverse behavioral health events like suicide, homicide, accidental death, and physical, emotional sexual abuse and neglect; refer victims and alleged offenders to appropriate treatment and case management resources; to gather case information for presentation and incident determination by a family advocacy review board; and to gather information for data analysis and reporting purposes for overall program improvement. If the form is not included in the Family Advocacy file, the records will reflect inconsistent risk assessment, behavioral health assessment, treatment and management planning. This form is essential to data collection to inform treatment and management planning. The form bolsters efforts to maintain and document family advocacy worker's compliance with standards in the assessment of victims and alleged offenders of abuse. In addition, the information gathered supports program improvement and risk mitigation.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05365 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-81] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107 or Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217; DSCA/SA&E-RAN.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-81 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN17MR17.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-81 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Singapore

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $42 million Other $24 million Total $66 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Two thousand (2,000) XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) rounds

    Non-MDE includes: U.S. Government and contractor services, mortar tube compatibility testing and/or modification, and other associated support equipment and services.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (VGG)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex Attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 13 March 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Singapore—XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) Rounds

    The Government of Singapore has requested a possible sale of two thousand (2,000) XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) rounds; U.S. Government and contractor services; and other associated support equipment and services. The total estimated cost is $66 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country which has been, and continues to be an important partner and force for political stability and economic progress in the Asia Pacific region.

    The Government of Singapore intends to use these defense articles and services to modernize its armed forces to meet current and future threats, to strengthen its homeland defense, and to provide greater security for its economic infrastructure. The Government of Singapore will have no difficulty absorbing XM395 APMI mortar rounds into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support does not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractor will be Orbital ATK. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require U.S. Government personnel or U.S. contractor representatives to travel to Singapore for a period of one (1) week for equipment fielding and acceptance testing by the Quality Assurance Team.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-81 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The XM395 Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI) is a Global Position System (GPS), Precise Positioning Service (PPS) guided 120mm high explosive mortar cartridge capable of enemy defeat with low collateral damage. It utilizes a Precision Light-Weight Universal Mortar Setting System (PLUMSS) that contains an Improved Platform Integration kit (iPIK) to load GPS coordinates, mission trajectory and fuze mode data into the mortar round. The GPS PPS crypto key is loaded into the iPIK by system key loader PYQ-10. Both the XM395 and the iPIK contain a Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM). The XM395 has 90% commonality with the Army's M1156 Precision Guided Kit. The overall system classification is SECRET.

    2. XM395 utilizes the Army's M782 Multi-Option for Artillery (MOFA) Proximity Height of Burst (HOB) Technology. The HOB sensor is comprised of components with technologies deemed as state of the art, requiring specialized production skills. The sensitive/critical technology is primarily in the design, development, production and manufacturing of the components (integrated circuits and assembly), and the integration methodology required to integrate those components onto an assembly to process embedded data (the software—algorithm—working parameters). The overall system classification is SECRET.

    3. Disclosure of this technology could result in an adversary developing countermeasures, thus lessening the effect of the projectile. Disclosure of test data, countermeasures, vulnerability/susceptibility analyses, and threat definition could allow reverse engineering and use by an adversary for possible use against U.S. and Coalition forces. Compromise could jeopardize the U.S. inventory through jammer development by adversaries. The risk of compromise has been assessed as moderate. Risk is reduced for fuze/munitions if adequately controlled and protected in storage and on the battlefield. Risk is mitigated by the prevention of disclosure of sensitive classified information (the know-how, software, and associated documentation).

    4. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Singapore.

    [FR Doc. 2017-05385 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Department of Defense Military Family Readiness Council (MFRC). This meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    Thursday, April 27, 2017, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Pentagon Library & Conference Center, Room B6. Escorts will be provided from the Pentagon Visitors Center waiting area (Pentagon Metro entrance) upon request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Melody McDonald or Dr. Randy Eltringham, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community & Family Policy), Office of Family Readiness Policy, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22350-2300, Room 3G15. Telephones (571) 372-0880; (571) 372-5315 or email: OSD Pentagon OUSD P-R Mailbox Family Readiness Council, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 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.

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public, subject to the availability of space. Members of the public who are entering the Pentagon should arrive at the Pentagon Visitors Center waiting area (Pentagon Metro entrance) at 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to allow time to pass through security check points and to be escorted to the meeting location. Members of the public need to email their RSVP to the Council at [email protected] no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 20, 2017 to confirm seating availability, to request an escort, and to request handicapped accessible transportation (cart) if needed.

    Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, interested persons may submit a written statement for review and consideration by submitting it to the Council's email address, [email protected] The deadline for written submissions is 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 13, 2017 which is two weeks prior to the meeting date.

    The purpose of this meeting is to receive information related to community collaboratives, policies, programs and services that provide relocation information and support services to DoD Service and family members throughout their mobile military lifecycle.

    Thursday, April 27, 2017 Meeting Agenda

    Welcome & Administrative Remarks.

    The Impact of Relocation on Service and Family Members.

    High Tech/High Touch Relocation Collaboratives and Support Services.

    Minnesota's Beyond the Yellow Ribbon Support for the National Guard and Reserve.

    Military OneSource Central Information and Referral Dissemination Point.

    Military Service Relocation Best Practices (Panel).

    Closing Remarks.

    Note:

    Exact order may vary.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05368 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting; Amendment AGENCY:

    Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting; amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 (82 FR 10762), the Department of Defense published a notice announcing a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel. Subsequent to the publication of the notice, an item was added to the Meeting Agenda. All other information in the February 15, 2017 notice remains the same.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, March 22, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Naval Heritage Center Theater, 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Edward Norton, DFO, Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101. Telephone: (703) 681-2890. Fax: (703) 681-1940. Email Address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel was unable to provide public notification concerning a change to a previously announced meeting agenda for a meeting on March 22, 2017, of the Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a). Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140.

    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, the Department of Defense announces that an item in the Meeting Agenda has changed.

    The revised Meeting Agenda reads as follows:

    Agenda 1. Sign-In 2. Welcome and Opening Remarks 3. Public Citizen Comments 4. Scheduled Therapeutic Class Reviews (Comments will follow each agenda item) a. Hepatitis C Agents—Direct Acting Antivirals b. Antibiotics—Tetracyclines c. Proton Pump Inhibitors 5. Recently Approved Drugs Review 6. Pertinent Utilization Management Issues 7. Panel Discussions and Vote Dated: March 13, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05347 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2788-017] Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for Submission of Final Amendments

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

    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.

    b. Project No.: 2788-017.

    c. Date filed: February 27, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Goodyear Lake Hydro, LLC (Goodyear Lake Hydro).

    e. Name of Project: Colliersville Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: On the North Branch of the Susquehanna River, in the Town of Milford, Otsego County, New York. The project does not occupy lands of the United States.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).

    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager; Enel Green Power North America, Inc., 100 Brickstone Square, Suite 300, Andover, MA 01810; (978) 935-6039; [email protected]

    i. FERC Contact: Emily Carter, (202) 502-6512 or [email protected]

    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such requests described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ¶ 61,076 (2001).

    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on the applicant.

    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status: April 28, 2017.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. 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-2788-017.

    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.

    n. The existing Colliersville Hydroelectric Project consists of: (1) A 200-foot-long, 35-foot-high reinforced-concrete Ambursen-type dam; (2) a 364-acre reservoir (Goodyear Lake) with a gross storage capacity of 7,800 acre-feet at a normal pool elevation of 1,150.22 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929; (3) a 550-foot-long reinforced concrete power canal, approximately 50 feet wide and 6 feet deep at the head gates, extending from a head gate structure adjacent to the dam (i.e., the intake) to the powerhouse; (4) a 103-foot-long by 33-foot-wide reinforced concrete powerhouse with trash racks with a clear spacing of 1.5 inches, and containing two turbines rated at 850 horsepower (HP) and 1150 HP, and two generators having a rated capacity of 650 kilowatts (kW) and 850 kW, respectively; (5) a 300-foot-long and approximately 50- to 60-foot-wide tailrace; (6) approximately 80-foot-long, 4.16-kilovolt underground generator leads or transmission lines from the powerhouse to an adjacent substation owned by the New York State Electric and Gas Corporation; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    Goodyear Lake Hydro operates the project in a run-of-river mode. The project experiences substantial seasonal and annual variations in generation, and generates an annual average of 5,985 megawatt-hours. Goodyear Lake Hydro proposes to continue to operate the project in run-of-river mode.

    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.

    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    p. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will be processed according to the following preliminary Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary) April 2017 Request Additional Information April 2017 Issue Acceptance Letter July 2017 Issue Scoping Document 1 for comments July 2017 Request Additional Information (if necessary) September 2017 Issue Scoping Document 2 November 2017 Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis December 2017 Commission issues EA or draft EA June 2018 Comments on EA or draft EA July 2018 Commission issues final EA October 2018

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05311 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-488-000] Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gulf Coast Expansion Project

    On August 1, 2016, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC (Natural) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-488-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(b) and (c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and abandon certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Gulf Coast Expansion Project (Project) and would involve construction and abandonment of facilities in Wharton and Cass Counties, Texas, to transport 460,000 dekatherms per day of natural gas supplies to an existing delivery point in the South Texas Gulf Coast area.

    On August 12, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA—April 21, 2017.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—July 20, 2017.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The proposed Project consists of construction and operation of a new 15,900 horsepower (hp) compressor station (CS 394) and an approximately 4,000-foot-long, 30-inch-diameter lateral connecting to Natural's Amarillo to Gulf Coast Pipeline all located in Cass County, Texas. In addition, Natural is requesting approval to abandon in place two 3,800 hp compressor units at its existing Compressor Station 301 located in Wharton County, Texas.

    Background

    On September 14, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gulf Coast Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from Texas Parks & Wildlife regarding fish and wildlife resources. In addition, we received comments from Indian tribes requesting notification of inadvertent discoveries during construction and also requested a cultural resources survey be conducted.

    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. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-488), and follow the instruction. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05307 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. DI17-2-000] Inside Passage Electric Cooperative; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To Intervene

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

    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.

    b. Docket No: DI17-2-000.

    c. Date Filed: February 7, 2017, and supplemented on March 1, 2017.

    d. Applicant: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative.

    e. Name of Project: Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: The proposed Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Project Project would be located on Gunnuk Creek, near the Town of Kake, on Kupreanof Island, in Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area, Alaska.

    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 817(b) (2012).

    h. Applicant Contact: Brandon Shaw, Operations Manager, Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, P.O. Box 210149, 12480 Mendenhall Loop Road, Auke Bay, AK 99821, telephone: (907) 789-3196; email: [email protected].

    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed to Jennifer Polardino, (202) 502-6437, or email: [email protected].

    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to intervene is: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, protests, and motions to intervene 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 DI17-2-000.

    k. Description of Project: The proposed run-of-river Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Project would consist of: (1) An existing 17-foot-high concrete dam on Gunnuk Creek; (2) an approximately 2,100-long, 54-inch-diameter steel penstock; (3) a 22 foot by 46 foot powerhouse; (4) a single horizontal axis crossflow turbine and synchronous generator with a rated capacity of 500 kilowatt; (5)a switchyard consisting of a pad mount transformer adjacent to the powerhouse; (6) a 130-foot-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line connecting the power from the switchyard to a point of interconnection with an existing utility system; and (7) appurtenant facilities.

    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to investigate and determine if the project would affect the interests of interstate or foreign commerce. The Commission also determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a navigable waterway; (2) would occupy public lands or reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or water power from a government dam; or (4) would be located on a non-navigable stream over which Congress has Commerce Clause jurisdiction and would be constructed or enlarged after 1935.

    l. Locations of the Application: This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above and in the Commission's Public Reference Room located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371.

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

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

    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTESTS, and MOTIONS TO INTERVENE, as applicable, and the Docket Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any Motion to Intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.

    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05305 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC17-7-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725T); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-725T, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: TRE Reliability Standards.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due May 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC17-7-000) 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], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-725T, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: TRE 1 Reliability Standards.

    1 Texas Reliability Entity.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0273.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-725T information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: Reliability Standard BAL-001-TRE-01 applies to entities registered as Generator Owners (GOs), Generator Operators (GOPs), and Balancing Authorities (BAs) within the Texas Reliability Entity region.

    Regional Reliability Standard BAL-001-TRE-01 is more comprehensive than the existing continent-wide Reliability Standards addressing frequency response, BAL-001-0.1a and BAL-003-0.1b in that the regional standard includes additional requirements and applies to generator owners and generator operators as well as balancing authorities. The expanded applicability of the regional Reliability Standard, thus, increases the reporting burden for entities that operate within the ERCOT 2 Interconnection.

    2 Electric Reliability Council of Texas.

    The information collection requirements entail the setting or configuration of the Control System software, identification and recording of events, data retention, and submitting frequency measurable events to the compliance enforcement authority (Regional Entity or NERC).

    Submitting frequency measurable events. As per Requirement R1, the BA has to identify and post information regarding Frequency Measurable Events (FME). Further, the BA has to calculate and report to the Compliance Enforcement Authority data related to Primary Frequency Response (PFR) performance of each generating unit/generating facility.

    Data retention. The BA, GO, and GOP shall keep data or evidence to show compliance, as identified below, unless directed by its Compliance Enforcement Authority to retain specific evidence for a longer period of time as part of an investigation. Compliance audits are generally about three years apart.

    • The BA shall retain a list of identified Frequency Measurable Events and shall retain FME information since its last compliance audit for Requirement R1, Measure M1.

    • The BA shall retain all monthly PFR performance reports since its last compliance audit for Requirement R2, Measure M2.

    • The BA shall retain all annual Interconnection minimum Frequency Response calculations, and related methodology and criteria documents, relating to time periods since its last compliance audit for Requirement R3, Measure M3.

    • The BA shall retain all data and calculations relating to the Interconnection's Frequency Response, and all evidence of actions taken to increase the Interconnection's Frequency Response, since its last compliance audit for Requirements R4 and R5, Measures M4 and M5.

    • Each GOP shall retain evidence since its last compliance audit for Requirement R8, Measure M8.

    • Each GO shall retain evidence since its last compliance audit for Requirements R6, R7, R9 and R10, Measures M6, M7, M9 and M10.

    Modification to Governor Controller Setting/Configuration (to be removed from the FERC-725T information collection). This category of response burden is being removed from FERC-725T. The “Modification to Governor Controller Setting/Configuration” category was a one-time requirement related to implementation of the BAL-001-TRE-01 Reliability Standard. Each GO was required to set its governor settings according to Requirement R6. In order to modify its settings, the GO had to generate governor test reports, governor setting sheets, and/or performance monitoring reports. The burden (912 hours) associated with this category was averaged over 2014-2016.3 The response requirements included in

    3 The total annual figure for this response category was 304 hours.

    this category were complete within 18 months of the effective date of the standard 4 or by 10/1/2015. Due to completion, the corresponding 304 annual burden hours are now being removed.

    4 The effective date of the standard was 4/1/2014.

    Type of Respondents: NERC Registered entities (specifically balancing authorities, generator owners, generator operators).

    Estimate of Annual Burden:5 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    5 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    6 The estimates for cost per hour are based on 2015 wage figures and derived as follows:

    • $64.29/hour, the average salary plus benefits per engineer (from Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm)

    • $37.75/hour, the salary plus benefits per information and record clerks (from Bureau of Labor Statistics at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm)

    All calculated wage figures within the burden table are rounded to the nearest dollar.

    7 BA (balancing authority).

    8 BA (balancing authority), GO (generator owner), and GOP (generator operator).

    FERC-725T (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System: TRE Reliability Standards) Number of
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number
  • of responses
  • Average
  • burden and
  • cost per
  • response 6
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • and total
  • annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Maintenance and Submission of Event Log Data 7 1 1 1 16 hrs.; $1,029 16 hrs.; $1,029 $1,029 Evidence Retention 8 130 1 130 2 hrs.; $76 260 hrs.; $9,815 $76 Total 131 276 hrs.; $10,844

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is 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 estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05309 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. AD17-1-000] Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice of Technical Conference

    In an order issued on October 8, 2004, the Commission set forth a guideline for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Order On Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual Charges Bill Appeals And Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures, 109 FERC 61,040 (2004) (October 8 Order). The Commission required OFAs to submit their costs using the OFA Cost Submission Form. The October 8 Order also announced that a technical conference would be held for the purpose of reviewing the submitted cost forms and detailed supporting documentation.

    The Commission will hold a technical conference for reviewing the submitted OFA costs. The purpose of the conference will be for OFAs and licensees to discuss costs reported in the forms and any other supporting documentation or analyses.

    The technical conference will be held on April 6, 2017, in Conference Room 3M-1 at the Commission's headquarters, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. The technical conference will begin at 2:00 p.m. (EST).

    The technical conference will also be transcribed. Those interested in obtaining a copy of the transcript immediately for a fee should contact the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., at 202-347-3700, or 1-800-336-6646. Two weeks after the post-forum meeting, the transcript will be available for free on the Commission's e-library system. Anyone without access to the Commission's Web site or who has questions about the technical conference should contact Norman Richardson at (202) 502-6219 or via email at [email protected]

    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to accessibilit[email protected] or call toll free (866) 208-3372 (voice), (202) 208-8659 (TTY), or send a FAX to 202-208-2106 with the required accommodations.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05306 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-28-000] Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the 2017 Expansion Project

    On December 30, 2016, Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company (Eastern Shore) filed an application in Docket No. CP17-28-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. Eastern Shore's proposal is known as the 2017 Expansion Project (Project), and would involve construction of approximately 40 miles of pipeline and appurtenant facilities located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware to provide 61,162 dekatherms per day of additional firm transportation service.

    On January 11, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review

    Issuance of EA—May 12, 2017.

    90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline—August 10, 2017.

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    The facilities to be constructed and operated under Section 7(c) include: (1) Six pipeline loop segments totaling 22.7 miles; (2) one 10-inch-diameter 16.9-mile-long mainline extension; (3) upgrades to an existing Meter and Regulator Station in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; (4) installation of an additional 3,750 horsepower compressor unit at the existing Daleville Compressor Station in Chester County, Pennsylvania; and (5) the addition of two pressure control stations in Sussex County, Delaware.

    Background

    On August 1, 2016, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed 2017 Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket no. PF16-7 and was sent to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners; and other interested individuals and groups in the Project area. In response to the Notice of Intent, the Commission received comments from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, West Sadsbury Township, the Chester Water Authority, the Maryland Historical Trust, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control—Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Franklin Township Historical Commission, and the National Park Service. The primary concerns raised were regarding wetland and waterbody impacts; potential damage to water mains; impacts on the White Clay Creek National Wild and Scenic River; potential impacts on bog turtles and their habitat; and potential impacts on historic, scenic, or cultural resources. Five private landowners filed comments expressing questions or concerns regarding the right-of-way acquisition process, overall public safety and pipeline reliability, restoration efforts, and the procedures to be used should future roadway widening occur where the pipeline is installed under the highway.

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.

    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. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-28), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05308 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2787-007] Green Mountain Power; Ottauquechee Hydro Company, Inc.; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed February 21, 2017 and supplemented on March 2, 2017, Enel Green Power North America, Inc. informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Ottauquechee Woolen Mill Project No. 2787, originally issued August 13, 1982 1 has been transferred to the Green Mountain Power, effective January 29, 2017. The project is located on the Ottauquechee River in Windsor County, Vermont. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.

    1 Order Granting Exemption from Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 MW or Less. White Current Corporation, 20 FERC ¶ 62,271 (1982).

    2. Green Mountain Power is now the exemptee of the Ottauquechee Woolen Mill Project No. 2787. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Green Mountain Power, 163 Acorn Lane, Colchester, VT 05446.

    Dated: March 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05310 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9032-2] 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 (EISs), Filed 03/06/2017 Through 03/10/2017. 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. 20170032, Draft, USFS, OR, Ringo Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Lillian Cross, 541-433-3200. EIS No. 20170033, Draft, BPA, WA, Melvin R. Sampson Hatchery Yakima Basin Coho Project, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Dave Goodman, 503-230-4764. EIS No. 20170034, Draft, USFS, CA, Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Thomas Hall, 530-628-1200. EIS No. 20170035, Final Supplement, USFS, ID, Johnson Bar Fire Salvage, Review Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Tam White, 208-926-6416. EIS No. 20170036, Final, USFS, AK, Shoreline II Outfitter/Guide, Review Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Carey Case, 907-772-5906. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160261, Draft, USFS, ID, Coeur d Alene Basin Natural Resource Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/17/2017, Contact: Jo Christensen, 208-765-7417.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 11/10/2016; Reopening Comment Period to End 04/17/2017.

    EIS No. 20170002, Draft, DOE, CA, Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Comment Period Ends: 04/13/2017, Contact: Stephie Jennings, 1-805-842-3864.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/13/2017; Extending the Comment Period from 03/14/2017 to 04/13/2017.

    EIS No. 20170004, Draft, USFWS, NPS, WA, North Cascades Ecosystem Draft Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan, Comment Period Ends: 04/28/2017, Contact: Karen Taylor-Goodrich, 360-854-7205.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 01/13/2017; Extending the Comment Period from 03/14/2017 to 04/28/2017.

    EIS No. 20170031, Draft, USFS, ID, Big Creek Hot Springs Geothermal Leasing, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/2017, Contact: Julie Hopkins, 208-756-5279.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 03/10/2017; Reestablish the Comment Period to End 05/01/2017.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05375 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket No.: 103172017-1111-10] Proposed Amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Proposed amendment to Initial Funded Priorities List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) seeks public and Tribal comment on a proposal to amend its Initial Funded Priorities List (FPL) to approve implementation funding and associated actions for the Palm River Restoration Project Phase II, East McKay Bay project (Palm River), Florida. The Council is proposing to approve $768,680 in implementation funding for Palm River. The Council is also proposing to reallocate $87,750 from planning to implementation. The total amount available for implementation of Palm River would be $856,430. These funds would be used for construction of three stormwater ponds, exotic vegetation removal, native planting, monitoring, management of exotic species, and maintenance of the culverts/stormwater ponds along the Palm River at the mouth of McKay Bay.

    In the Initial FPL, components of the Palm River project were split among two sponsors: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Florida. The EPA portion of the Palm River project was included with a larger set of restoration measures within the FPL activity entitled Tampa Bay National Estuary Program. To enhance administrative efficiency, the Council is proposing to unify the two components of the Palm River project under one sponsor, Florida. The implementation funding proposed above includes monies originally budgeted for implementation of the EPA component ($271,430).

    To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other applicable laws, the Council is proposing to adopt an existing Environmental Assessment (EA) and ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of an associated Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit that has been issued for the project. In so doing, the Council would expedite project implementation, reduce planning costs and potentially increase the ecological benefits of this project.

    DATES:

    Comments on this proposed amendment are due April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this proposed amendment may be submitted as follows:

    By Email: Submit comments by email to [email protected] Email submission of comments ensures timely receipt and enables the Council to make them available to the public. In general, the Council will make such comments available for public inspection and copying on its Web site, www.restorethegulf.gov, without change, including any business or personal information provided, such as names, addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers. All comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, will be part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should only submit information that you wish to make publicly available.

    By Mail: Send comments to Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council, 500 Poydras Street, Suite 1117, New Orleans, LA 70130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Please send questions by email to [email protected] or contact John Ettinger at (504) 444-3522.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill led to passage of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act) (33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note), which dedicates 80 percent of all Clean Water Act administrative and civil penalties related to the oil spill to the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The RESTORE Act also created the Council, an independent Federal entity comprised of the five Gulf Coast states and six Federal agencies. Among other responsibilities, the Council administers a portion of the Trust Fund known as the Council-Selected Restoration Component in order to “undertake projects and programs, using the best available science, that would restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches, coastal wetlands, and economy of the Gulf Coast.” Additional information on the Council can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov.

    On December 9, 2015, the Council approved the FPL, which includes projects and programs approved for funding under the Council-Selected Restoration Component, along with other activities the Council identified as priorities for potential future funding. Activities approved for funding in the FPL are included in “Category 1;” the priorities for potential future funding are in “Category 2.” In the FPL the Council approved approximately $156.6 million in Category 1 restoration and planning activities, and prioritized twelve Category 2 activities for possible funding in the future, subject to environmental compliance and further Council and public review. The Council included planning activities for Palm River in Category 1 and implementation activities for Palm River in Category 2.

    The Council reserved approximately $26.6 million for implementing priority activities in the future. These reserved funds may be used to support some, all or none of the activities included in Category 2 of the FPL and/or to support other activities not currently under consideration by the Council. As appropriate, the Council intends to review each activity in Category 2 in order to determine whether to: (1) Move the activity to Category 1 and approve it for funding, (2) remove it from Category 2 and any further consideration, or (3) continue to include it in Category 2. A Council decision to amend the FPL to move an activity from Category 2 into Category 1 must be approved by a Council vote after consideration of public and Tribal comments.

    II. Environmental Compliance

    Prior to approving an activity for funding in FPL Category 1, the Council must comply with NEPA and other applicable Federal environmental laws. At the time of approval of the FPL, the Council had not addressed NEPA and other laws applicable to implementation of Palm River. The Council did, however, recognize the potential ecological value of Palm River, based on a review conducted during the FPL process. For this reason, the Council approved $87,750 in planning funds for Palm River, a portion of which would be used to complete any needed environmental compliance activities. As noted above, the Council placed the implementation portion of Palm River into FPL Category 2, pending the outcome of this environmental compliance work and further Council review. The estimated cost of implementation of the Florida portion of Palm River is $497,250. As discussed earlier, EPA sponsored another component of Palm River, which was also placed in FPL Category 2. The estimated implementation cost of the EPA component is $271,430. As noted above, the Council is proposing to unify both components under one sponsor (Florida).

    Since approval of the FPL, Florida, EPA, and Council staff have collaborated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to identify an existing EA and associated environmental compliance documentation that could be used to support Council approval of implementation funding for Palm River. This EA was prepared by USACE in association with a CWA Section 404 nationwide permit (NWP 27) for aquatic habitat restoration, establishment and enhancement activities.

    The Council has reviewed this EA and associated documents, including a July 31, 2014, USACE memorandum for the record documenting use of NWP 27 for Palm River and a February 22, 2017, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter to the Council regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition to ESA, the EA and associated documents address compliance with other Federal environmental laws, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and others. Based on this review, the Council is proposing to adopt this EA to support the approval of implementation funds for Palm River, provided that the project is implemented in accordance with the terms and conditions of the CWA Section 404 permit. This EA and the associated documentation can be found here: https://www.restorethegulf.gov/funded-priorities-list. (See: Palm River Restoration Project Phase II, East McKay Bay—Implementation.)

    Palm River Project

    If approved for implementation funding, the Palm River project would entail construction of three stormwater ponds, exotic vegetation removal, native planting, monitoring, and perpetual maintenance of exotic species and the culverts/stormwater ponds along the Palm River at the mouth of McKay Bay. Specifically, the Palm River project would improve water quality and enhance upland and wetland areas on 53 acres of Southwest Florida Water Management District land. It would remove exotic vegetation, create an herbaceous wetland, and build three stormwater management areas to provide water quality treatment for 436 acres of residential, commercial and industrial developed land.

    Additional information on this Project, including metrics of success, response to science reviews and more is available in an activity-specific appendix to the FPL, which can be found at https://www.restorethegulf.gov. (Please see the table on page 25 of the FPL and click on: Palm River Restoration Project Phase II, East McKay Bay, Implementation.)

    Will D. Spoon, Program Analyst, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05353 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reapprove the information collection project: “Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Health Plan Survey Comparative Database.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2016 and allowed 60 days for public comment. Since AHRQ did not receive any substantive comments during this period, this notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Health Plan Survey Comparative Database

    The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reapprove, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, AHRQ's collection of information for the AHRQ Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Database for Health Plans: OMB Control number 0935-0165, expiration May 31, 2017. The CAHPS Health Plan Database consists of data from the AHRQ CAHPS Health Plan Survey. Health plans in the U.S. are asked to submit data voluntarily from the survey to AHRQ through its contractor, Westat. The CAHPS Database was developed by AHRQ in 1998 in response to requests from health plans, purchasers, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide comparative data to support public reporting of health plan ratings, health plan accreditation and quality improvement.

    This research has the following goals:

    (1) To maintain the CAHPS Health Plan database using data from AHRQ's standardized CAHPS Health Plan survey to provide comparative results to health care purchasers, consumers, regulators and policy makers across the country.

    (2) To offer several products and services, including comparative benchmark results presented through an Online Reporting System, summary chartbooks, custom analyses, and data for research purposes.

    (3) To provide data for AHRQ's annual National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goals of this project the following data collections will be implemented:

    (1) CAHPS Health Plan Survey that includes the Adult Medicaid, Child Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) populations. The Adult data collection uses the Adult survey and the Child and SCHIP collections include a child survey with chronic conditions and a child survey without chronic condition items. The CAHPS Health Plan surveys ask enrollees about their recent experiences with health plans and their services. This standardized survey was designed to support consumers in assessing the performance of health plans and choosing the plans that best meet their needs. Health plans can also use the survey results to identify their strengths and weaknesses and target areas for improvement. Participants have access to resources regarding the data submission process, a user guide and a technical assistance help line.

    (2) Medicare health plan data are received from CMS.

    Survey data from the CAHPS Health Plan Database is used to produce four types of products: (1) An annual chartbook available to the public on the CAHPS Database Web site (https://www.cahpsdatabase.ahrq.gov/CAHPSIDB/Public/Chartbook.aspx); (2) individual participant comparative reports that are confidential and customized for each participating organization (e.g., health plan, Medicaid agency) that submits their data; (3) a research database available to researchers wanting to conduct additional analyses; and (4) data tables provided to AHRQ for inclusion in the National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Report.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours for the respondent to participate in the database. The burden hours pertain only to the collection of Medicaid data from State Medicaid agencies and individual Medicaid health plans because those are the only entities that submit data through the data submission process (other data are obtained from CMS as noted earlier in Section 2). The 85 Point of Contact (POC)s in Exhibit 1 are a combination of an estimated 75 State Medicaid agencies and individual health plans, and 10 vendor organizations.

    Each State Medicaid agency, health plan or vendor will register online for submission. The online Registration form will require about 5 minutes to complete. Each submitter will also complete a Health Plan information form of information about each Health Plan such as the name of the plan, the product type (e.g., HMO, PPO), the population surveyed (e.g., adult Medicaid or child Medicaid). Each year, the prior year's plan data are preloaded in the plan table to lessen burden on the Sponsor. The Sponsor is responsible for updating the plan table to reflect the current year's plan information. The online Health Plan Information form takes on average 30 minutes to complete per health plan with each POC completing the form for 4 plans on average. The data use agreement will be completed by the 75 participating State Medicaid agencies or individual health plans. Vendors do not sign or submit DUAs. The DUA requires about 3 minutes to sign and return by fax or mail. Each submitter will provide a copy of their questionnaire and the survey data file in the required file format. Survey data files must conform to the data file layout specifications provide by the CAHPS Database. Since the unit of analysis is at the health plan level, submitters will upload one data file per health plan. Once a data file is uploaded the file will be checked automatically to ensure it conforms to the specifications and a data file status report will be produced and made available to the submitter. Submitters will review each report and will be expected to fix any errors in their data file and resubmit if necessary. It will take about 1 hour to submit the data for each plan, and each POC will submit data for 4 plans on average. The total burden is estimated to be 501 hours annually.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents/
  • POCs
  • Number of
  • responses per POC
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Registration Form 85 1 5/60 7 Health Plan Information Form 75 4 30/60 150 Data Use Agreement 75 1 3/60 4 Data Files Submission 85 4 1 340 Total 320 NA NA 501

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to complete one submission process. The cost burden is estimated to be $22,153 annually.

    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden hours Average
  • hourly wage rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Registration Form 85 7 a 50.99 $357 Health Plan Information Form 75 150 a 50.99 7,649 Data Use Agreement 75 4 b 89.35 357 Data Files Submission 85 340 c 40.56 13,790 Total 320 501 NA 22,153 * National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2015, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” a Based on the mean hourly wage for Medical and Health Services Managers (11-9111). b Based on the mean hourly wage for Chief Executives (11-1011). c Based on the mean hourly wages for Computer Programmer (15-1131).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05301 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0536] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection resulting from the submission to the Agency of pharmacogenomic data during the drug development process.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by May 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

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

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

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

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

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0536 for “Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    Guidance for Industry on Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions OMB Control Number 0910-0557—Extension

    The guidance provides recommendations to sponsors submitting or holding investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications (NDAs), or biologics license applications (BLAs) on what pharmacogenomic data should be submitted to the Agency during the drug development process. Sponsors holding, and applicants submitting, INDs, NDAs, or BLAs are subject to FDA requirements for submitting to the Agency data relevant to drug safety and efficacy (21 CFR 312.22, 312.23, 312.31, 312.33, 314.50, 314.81, 601.2, and 601.12).

    The guidance interprets FDA regulations for IND, NDA, or BLA submissions, clarifying when the regulations require pharmacogenomics data to be submitted and when the submission of such data is voluntary. The pharmacogenomic data submissions described in the guidance that are required to be submitted to an IND, NDA, BLA, or annual report are covered by the information collection requirements under parts 312, 314, and 601 (approved under OMB control numbers 0910-0014 (part 312, INDs); 0910-0001 (part 314, NDAs and annual reports); and 0910-0338 (part 601, BLAs)).

    The guidance distinguishes between pharmacogenomic tests that may be considered valid biomarkers appropriate for regulatory decision-making, and other, less well-developed exploratory tests. The submission of exploratory pharmacogenomic data is not required under the regulations, although the Agency encourages the voluntary submission of such data.

    The guidance describes the voluntary genomic data submission (VGDS) that can be used for such a voluntary submission. The guidance does not recommend a specific format for the VGDS, except that such a voluntary submission be designated as a VGDS. The data submitted in a VGDS and the level of detail should be sufficient for FDA to be able to interpret the information and independently analyze the data, verify results, and explore possible genotype-phenotype correlations across studies. FDA does not want the VGDS to be overly burdensome and time consuming for the sponsor.

    FDA has estimated the burden of preparing a voluntary submission described in the guidance that should be designated as a VGDS, based on our experience with these submissions over the past few years, and on our familiarity with sponsors' interest in submitting pharmacogenomic data during the drug development process. In 2013, we received three VGDS. Since 2013, there have been no submission of VGDS, however, for purposes of this information collection approval, we are estimating that we may receive one submission annually. We estimate each submission requires approximately 50 hours to prepare and submit to FDA.

    We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Information collection activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Voluntary Genomic Data Submissions 1 1 1 50 50 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
    Dated: March 13, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05293 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0804] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Premarket Notification AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0120. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Premarket Notification—21 CFR Part 807, Subpart E OMB Control Number 0910-0120—Reinstatement

    Section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and the implementing regulation under part 807 (21 CFR part 807, subpart E) require a person who intends to market a medical device to submit a premarket notification submission to FDA at least 90 days before proposing to begin the introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce, for commercial distribution of a device intended for human use. Based on the information provided in the notification, FDA must determine whether the new device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, as defined in § 807.92(a)(3) (21 CFR 807.92(a)(3)). If the device is determined to be not substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device, it must have an approved premarket approval application (PMA), product development protocol, humanitarian device exemption (HDE), petition for Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation (de novo), or be reclassified into class I or class II before being marketed. FDA makes the final decision of whether a device is substantially equivalent or not equivalent.

    Section 807.81 states when a premarket notification is required. A premarket notification is required to be submitted by a person who is: (1) Introducing a device to the market for the first time; (2) introducing a device into commercial distribution for the first time by a person who is required to register; and (3) introducing or reintroducing a device which is significantly changed or modified in design, components, method of manufacturer, or the intended use that could affect the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Form FDA 3514, a summary cover sheet form, assists respondents in categorizing administrative 510(k) information for submission to FDA. This form also assists respondents in categorizing information for other FDA medical device programs such as PMAs, investigational device exemptions, and HDEs. Under § 807.87(h), each 510(k) submitter must include in the 510(k) either a summary of the information in the 510(k) as required by § 807.92 (510(k) summary) or a statement certifying that the submitter will make available upon request the information in the 510(k) with certain exceptions as per § 807.93 (510(k) statement). If the 510(k) submitter includes a 510(k) statement in the 510(k) submission, § 807.93 requires that the official correspondent of the firm make available within 30 days of a request all information included in the submitted premarket notification on safety and effectiveness. This information will be provided to any person within 30 days of a request if the device described in the 510(k) submission is determined to be substantially equivalent. The information provided will be a duplicate of the 510(k) submission including any safety and effectiveness information, but excluding all patient identifiers and trade secret and commercial confidential information.

    Section 204 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) (Pub. L. 105-115) amended section 514 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 allows FDA to recognize consensus standards developed by international and national organizations for use in satisfying portions of device premarket review submissions including premarket notifications or other requirements. FDA has published and updated the list of recognized standards regularly since enactment of FDAMA and has allowed 510(k) submitters to certify conformance to recognized standards to meet the requirements of § 807.87. Form FDA 3654, the 510(k) Standards Data Form, standardizes the format for submitting information on consensus standards that a 510(k) submitter chooses to use as a portion of their premarket notification submission (Form FDA 3654 is not for declarations of conformance to a recognized standard). FDA believes that use of this form will simplify the 510(k) preparation and review process for 510(k).

    Under § 807.90, submitters may request information on their 510(k) review status 90 days after the initial login date of the 510(k). Thereafter, the submitter may request status reports every 30 days following the initial status request. To obtain a 510(k) status report, the submitter should complete the status request form, Form FDA 3541, and fax it to the Center for Devices and Radiological Health office identified on the form.

    In the Federal Register of November 18, 2016 (81 FR 81772), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

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

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity and 21 CFR part/section Form FDA No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    510(k) submission (807 subpart E) 3,900 1 3,900 79 308,100 Summary cover sheet (807.87) 3514 1,956 1 1,956 .5 (30 minutes) 978 Status request (807.90(a)(3)) 3541 218 1 218 .25 (15 minutes) 55 Standards (807.87(d) and (f)) 3654 2,700 1 2,700 10 27,000 510(k) statement (807.93) 225 10 2,250 10 22,500 Total 358,633 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: March 13, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05300 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0117] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0762. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices Under Section 515A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act OMB Control Number 0910-0762—Extension

    The guidance document entitled “Providing Information About Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices—Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff” suggests that applicants who submit certain medical device applications include, if readily available, pediatric use information for diseases or conditions that the device is being used to treat, diagnose, or cure that are outside the device's approved or proposed indications for use, as well as an estimate of the number of pediatric patients with such diseases or conditions. The information submitted will allow FDA to identify pediatric uses of devices outside their approved or proposed indication for use to determine areas where further pediatric device development could be useful. This recommendation applies to applicants who submit the following applications: (1) Any request for a humanitarian device exemption submitted under section 520(m) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360j(m)); (2) any premarket approval application (PMA) or supplement to a PMA submitted under section 515 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360e); and (3) any product development protocol submitted under section 515 of the FD&C Act.

    Respondents are permitted to submit information relating to uses of the device outside the approved or proposed indication if such uses are described or acknowledged in acceptable sources of readily available information. We estimate that 20 percent of respondents submitting information required by section 515A of the FD&C Act will choose to submit this information and that it will take 30 minutes for them to do so.

    In the Federal Register of December 5, 2016 (81 FR 87575), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

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

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Description Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Total annual responses Average burden per response Total hours
    Uses outside approved indication 148 1 148 0.5 (30 minutes) 74 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: March 13, 2017. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05302 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled for the National Advisory Committee on Rural Health and Human Services (NACRHHS). This meeting will be open to the public. Information about NACRHHS and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/rural.

    DATES:

    April 10, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT April 11, 2017, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT April 12, 2017, 9:00 a.m.-11:00 a.m. EDT ADDRESSES:

    This meeting will be held in-person at the Hyatt Place Hotel. The address for the meeting is 400 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20024. The meeting will also be held in-person at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, located at 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, on April 11.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Hirsch, Administrative Coordinator, NACRHHS, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 17W41C, Rockville, Maryland 20857, telephone (301) 443-0835, fax (301) 443-2803 or by email at [email protected].

    Persons interested in attending any portion of the meeting, including the April 11 portion at the Hubert H. Humphrey Building, should contact Adam Cohen at the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy before April 7, 2017 by telephone at (301) 443-0445 or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NACRHHS provides counsel and recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the delivery, research, development, and administration of health and human services in rural areas.

    The meeting on Monday, April 10, will be called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the Chairperson of the Committee, the Honorable Ronnie Musgrove. The Committee will examine the current delivery of health care and human services in rural areas. The day will conclude with a period of public comment at approximately 5:00 p.m.

    The Committee will visit the Hubert H. Humphrey Building on Tuesday, April 11. The day will conclude with a period of public comment at approximately 5:00 p.m.

    The Committee will meet to summarize key findings and develop a work plan for the next quarter and its future meeting on Wednesday, April 12, at 9:00 a.m., at the Hyatt Place Hotel.

    The Hubert H. Humphrey Building requires a security screening on entry. To facilitate your access to the building, please contact Adam Cohen before April 7, 2017 at (301) 443-0445. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Adam Cohen by telephone at (301) 443-0445 or by email at [email protected] at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05298 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Board of Scientific Advisors, March 21, 2017, 08:30 a.m. to 05:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 31 Center Drive, Building 31, Conference Room 10, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the Federal Register on March 3, 2017, 82 FR 12459.

    The meeting notice is amended to change the meeting start and end time to 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The date and location remain the same. The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: March 14, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05391 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute; 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: National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel; Gabriella Miller Kids First.

    Date: April 24, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Westin Grand Thomas Boardroom, 2350 M Street NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Contact Person: Barbara J. Thomas, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Ste. 4076, MSC 9306, Bethesda, MD 20892-9306, 301-402-0838, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 14, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05392 Filed 3-16-17; 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; Instrumentation Systems Development Special Emphasis Panel.

    Date: April 6, 2017.

    Time: 1:15 p.m. to 2:00 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: Kathryn Kalasinsky, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5158, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-402-1074, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA-RM-16-005: 2017 Pioneer Award Review.

    Date: April 18-20, 2017.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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: James W. Mack, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4154, MSC 7806, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-2037, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cancer Therapeutics.

    Date: April 18, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 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: Malaya Chatterjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6192, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 806-2515, [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: March 14, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05390 Filed 3-16-17; 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 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member conflict: GI Physiology and Pathology.

    Date: March 22, 2017.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 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: Meenakshisundar Ananthanarayanan, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4200, Bethesda, MD 20817, 301-435-1234, [email protected].

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (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: March 14, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05389 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting

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

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

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

    Name of Committee: National Advisory Council on Aging.

    Date: May 16-17, 2017.

    Closed: May 16, 2017, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C Wing 6th Floor Conference Room 10, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: May 17, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m.

    Agenda: Call to order and report from the Director; Discussion of future meeting dates; Consideration of minutes of last meeting; Reports from Task Force on Minority Aging Research, Working Group on Program; Council Speaker; Program Highlights.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, C Wing 6th Floor Conference Room 10, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Robin Barr, Director, National Institute on Aging, Office of Extramural Activities, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 496-9322, [email protected]

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected beforebeing allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nih.gov/nia/naca/, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 13, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05393 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging; Notice of Meeting

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

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIA.

    Date: May 9, 2017.

    Closed: 8:00 a.m. to 8:20 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research, Center 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: 8:20 a.m. to 11:50 a.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: 11:50 a.m. to 1:05 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: 1:05 p.m. to 3:05 p.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: 3:05 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Open: 3:40 p.m. to 4:40 p.m.

    Agenda: Committee discussion, individual presentations, laboratory overview.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Closed: 4:40 p.m. to 5:45 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institute on Aging, Biomedical Research Center, 3rd Floor Conference Room, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224.

    Contact Person: Luigi Ferrucci, Ph.D., MD, Scientific Director, National Institute on Aging, 251 Bayview Boulevard, Suite 100, Room 4C225, Baltimore, MD 21224, 410-558-8110, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 14, 2017. Melanie J. Pantoja, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05394 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis And Musculoskeletal and Skin 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAMS.

    Date: April 4-5, 2017

    Time: 6:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate program performance and investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room: 4C32, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: John J. O'Shea, MD, Ph.D., Scientific Director, National Institute of Arthritis & Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Building 10, Room 9N228, MSC 1820, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-2612, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: March 14, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05395 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R5-R-2016-N217; BAC-4333-99] Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge, Plymouth, MA; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental assessment (EA) for Massasoit National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for public review and comment. Massasoit NWR is located in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and is administered by staff at Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex based in Sudbury, Massachusetts. The draft CCP and EA describes two alternatives for managing Massasoit NWR for the next 15 years. Alternative B is identified as the Service-preferred alternative. Also available for public review and comment are the draft compatibility determinations, which are included as appendix B in the draft CCP and EA.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration of your written comments, please send them by May 16, 2017. We will also hold a public meeting. We will announce the meeting and other opportunities for public input in local news media, via our project mailing list, and on the refuge planning Web site: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Massasoit/what_we_do/conservation.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, request copies of the document, or obtain more information on the plan by any of the following methods.

    Email: [email protected] Please include “Massasoit CCP” in the subject line of the message.

    U.S. Mail: Elizabeth Herland, Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776.

    Fax: Attention: Elizabeth Herland, 978-443-2898.

    In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call Elizabeth Herland, Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, at 978-579-4026, during regular business hours to make an appointment to view the document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Herland, Project Leader, Eastern Massachusetts NWR; mailing address: 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776; 978-579-4026 (phone); 978-443-2898 (fax); [email protected] (email) (please put “Massasoit NWR” in the subject line).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Massasoit NWR. We published our original notice of intent to prepare a CCP in the Federal Register on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1503).

    The 209-acre Massasoit NWR is located in Plymouth, Massachusetts, and is comprised of three parcels: Crooked Pond (184 acres), Island Pond (15 acres), and Hoyts Pond (10 acres). The refuge was established in 1983 primarily to conserve the federally endangered northern red-bellied cooter (cooter). In addition, the refuge protects other wildlife and plant species, including rare moths and other native pollinators, migratory songbirds, and small mammals. Habitats on the refuge include pine-oak upland forest with varying understory types, and coastal plain ponds and associated shoreline and upland habitats.

    The refuge is currently closed to all public uses. It has not been open to the public since its establishment due to both staffing limitations and the presence of the cooter that is sensitive to disturbance. Exceptions have been made for occasional interpretive and environmental education programs under a special use permit (SUP), or via special staff-led programs.

    Background

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years, in accordance with the Refuge Administration Act.

    Public Outreach

    In April 2012, we distributed a planning newsletter to inform stakeholders about the planning process and asked recipients to contact us about issues or concerns they would like us to address. We also posted the newsletter on our Web site and published news releases in local newspapers. We held stakeholder and public scoping meetings in early April 2012, in Plymouth, Massachusetts. These meetings helped refine the partner and public concerns to be address in the planning process. Throughout the planning process, refuge staff have conducted additional outreach via participation in community meetings and events, other public forums, and meetings with the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. We have considered and evaluated all of the comments we received and address them in various ways in the two alternatives presented in the draft CCP and EA.

    CCP Alternatives We Are Considering

    We developed and evaluated two management alternatives in the draft CCP and EA. A full description of each alternative is in the draft plan. Both alternatives include measures to continue conducting biological and ecological research and investigations on cooters, as well as continue active habitat management to benefit the cooters and other species of concern.

    There are other actions that differ among the alternatives. Below, we provide summaries of the two alternatives, highlighting the differences.

    Alternative A (Current Management)

    Alternative A is the “no action” alternative required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Alternative A defines our current management activities, including those planned, funded, or underway, and serves as the baseline against which to compare alternative B. Under alternative A, we would continue to contribute to rangewide cooter population recovery goals by protecting existing pond and shoreline habitat on the refuge from human disturbance, creating and maintaining high quality nesting habitat, and increasing nest success and hatchling survival. Our work with the cooter recovery team and species experts would continue to refine our understanding of species habitat requirements and the factors limiting survival and reproduction. We would continue to manage mixed pine-oak forest and other upland habitats to reduce hazardous fuel loading through mechanical clearing and prescribed fire. We would also continue to allow limited environmental education and interpretation programs under a SUP, or led by refuge staff.

    Alternative B (Increased Ecosystem Monitoring, Partnerships, and Public Use; Service-Preferred Alternative)

    Alternative B is the Service-preferred alternative. It combines the actions we believe would best achieve the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals and respond to public issues. Alternative B represents an extension and progression of all areas of current refuge management, including additional biological work, increased visitor services opportunities, and enhanced outreach to local communities. Alternative B places a greater emphasis on the importance of the refuge in a larger landscape context. This alternative would expand habitat management and monitoring for cooter and other species on additional refuge-owned parcels, and would include the use of prescribed burning to increase the structure and species composition of upland habitats to benefit wildlife resources of concern.

    Alternative B would pursue the Service's administrative requirements to evaluate potential hunting opportunities on the Crooked Pond parcel. Wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, and environmental education would be allowed on special occasions when led by refuge staff or partners working under a SUP. These activities would allow visitors to gain a better understanding of the unique natural resources the refuge protects and encourage visitors to become better stewards and advocates for resource conservation.

    Under alternative B, refuge staff would increase outreach to the local community to raise the refuge's visibility and promote the relevancy of the refuge and the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex to conservation in southeast Massachusetts.

    Next Steps

    After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and address them in the form of a final CCP and, if appropriate, finding of no significant impact.

    Public Availability of Documents

    In addition to any methods listed in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain documents from the agency Web site at: http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Massasoit/what_we_do/conservation.html.

    Submitting Comments

    We consider comments substantive if they:

    • Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the information in the document.

    • Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the EA.

    • Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented in the EA.

    • Provide new or additional information relevant to the EA.

    Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, 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: March 13, 2017. Wendi Weber, Regional Director, Northeast Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05369 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLMTM00000.L111100000.XP0000 17XL1109AF MO#4500082502] Notice of Public Meeting; Central Montana Resource Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Central Montana Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Central Montana RAC meeting will be held on March 29 and 30, 2017, in Glasgow, Montana. The meeting on March 29, 2017, will be held from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m., with a 30-minute public comment period at 12:30 p.m. RAC members will take a field trip on March 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be in the Cottonwood Inn Conference Room, 54250 U.S. Hwy. 2, Glasgow, MT 59230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Albers, North Central Montana District Manager, 1220 38th Street North, Great Falls, MT 59401, (406) 791-7794, [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-677-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of management issues associated with public land management in Montana. During these meetings, the RAC is scheduled to participate in, discuss, and act upon these topics or activities. All RAC meetings are open to the public.

    Agenda items for the March 29-30, 2017, sessions include, but are not limited to: An update on implementation of the existing Sweet Grass Hills mineral withdrawal; an update on the American Prairie Reserve bison conversion proposal; information on BLM travel management planning; HiLine precipitation; a briefing on the proposed Sandy Coal Boat Ramp; regular business items such as planning the next meeting's agenda; and. a field trip to a sage grouse lek.

    The RAC meeting will also have time allocated for oral public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comments, please be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 1784.4-2.

    Rick Hotaling, Acting Associate State Director, BLM Montana/Dakotas.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05386 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-560 and 731-TA-1320 (Final)] Carbon and Alloy Steel Cut-to-Length Plate From China Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from China, provided for in subheadings 7208.40.30, 7208.51.00, 7208.52.00, 7211.13.00, 7211.14.00, 7225.40.11, 7225.40.30, 7226.20.00, and 7226.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and subsidized by the government of China.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective April 8, 2016, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by ArcelorMittal USA LLC (Chicago, Illinois), Nucor Corporation (Charlotte, North Carolina), and SSAB Enterprises, LLC (Lisle, Illinois). The Commission scheduled the final phase of the investigations following notification of a preliminary determination by Commerce that imports of carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from China were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigation and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of October 12, 2016 (81 FR 70440). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on November 30, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 13, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4675 (March 2017), entitled Carbon and Alloy Cut-to-Length Plate From China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-560 and 731-TA-1320 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05315 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Digital Cable and Satellite Products, Set-Top Boxes, Gateways, and Components Thereof, DN 3204; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. on March 10, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital cable and satellite products, set-top boxes, gateways, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents ARRIS International plc of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Group, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Technology, Inc. of Horsham, PA; ARRIS Enterprises, LLC of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Solutions, Inc. of Suwanee, GA; ARRIS Global Ltd. (formerly Pace Ltd.) of England; Pace Americas, LLC of Boca Raton, FL; Pace Americas Holdings, Inc. of Boca Raton, FL; Pace USA LLC of Boca Raton, FL; and Pace Americas Investments, LLC of Boca Raton, FL. The complainants request that the Commission issue an exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3204”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures).1 Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05321 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332-227] Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Scheduling of public hearing and opportunity to submit information in connection with the Commission's 23rd report.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is inviting the public to appear at the public hearing and or to submit information in writing in connection with the preparation of its 23rd report under section 215 of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, which requires the Commission to report biennially to the Congress and the President by September 30 of each reporting year on the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and U.S. consumers and on the economy of the beneficiary countries. The report is being prepared under Commission investigation No. 332-227, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries. The report will cover trade during calendar years 2015 and 2016, and will be transmitted to the Congress and the President by September 29, 2017.

    DATES:

    April 13, 2017: Deadline for filing requests to appear at the public hearing.

    April 20, 2017: Deadline for filing pre-hearing briefs and statements.

    May 11, 2017: Public hearing.

    May 18, 2017: Deadline for filing post-hearing briefs and statements.

    May 18, 2017: Deadline for filing all other written submissions.

    September 29, 2017: Transmittal of Commission report to Congress and the President.

    ADDRESSES:

    All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public file for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov/edis3-internal/app.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Project Leader Justino De La Cruz (202-205-3252 or [email protected]) or Deputy Project Leader Heather Wickramarachi (202-205-2699 or [email protected]) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of this investigation, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or [email protected]). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819 or [email protected]). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Web site at http://www.usitc.gov. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Section 215(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) requires that the Commission submit biennial reports to the Congress and the President regarding the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and consumers, and on the economy of the beneficiary countries. Section 215(b)(1) requires that the reports include, but not be limited to, an assessment regarding:

    (A) The actual effect, during the period covered by the report, of [CBERA] on the United States economy generally, as well as on those specific domestic industries which produce articles that are like, or directly competitive with, articles being imported into the United States from beneficiary countries; and

    (B) the probable future effect which this Act will have on the United States economy generally, as well as on such domestic industries, before the provisions of this Act terminate.

    The report will cover trade with the 17 beneficiary countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago.

    Notice of institution of the investigation was published in the Federal Register of May 14, 1986 (51 FR 17678). The Commission plans to transmit the 23rd report, covering calendar years 2015 and 2016, by September 29, 2017.

    Public Hearing: A public hearing in connection with this investigation will be held at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 11, 2017. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, no later than 5:15 p.m., April 13, 2017, in accordance with the requirements in the “Submissions” section below. All pre-hearing briefs and statements should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., April 20, 2017; and all post-hearing briefs and statements responding to matters raised at the hearing should be filed not later than 5:15 p.m., May 18, 2017. In the event that, as of the close of business on April 13, 2017, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000 after April 13, 2017, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.

    Written Submissions: In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to file written submissions concerning this investigation. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, and should be received not later than 5:15 p.m., May 18, 2017. All written submissions must conform to the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 and the Commission's Handbook on Filing Procedures require that interested parties file documents electronically on or before the filing deadline and submit eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00 p.m. eastern time on the next business day. In the event that confidential treatment of a document is requested, interested parties must file, at the same time as the eight paper copies, at least four (4) additional true paper copies in which the confidential information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division (202-205-1802).

    Confidential Business Information: Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform to the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “non-confidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available for inspection by interested parties.

    The Commission will not include any confidential business information in the report it makes available to the public. However, all information, including confidential business information, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any confidential business information in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.

    Summaries of Written Submissions: The Commission intends to publish summaries of positions of interested persons. Persons wishing to have a summary of their position included in the report should include a summary with their written submission. The summary may not exceed 500 words, should be in MSWord format or a format that can be easily converted to MSWord, and should not include any confidential business information. The summary will be published as provided if it meets these requirements and is germane to the subject matter of the investigation. The Commission will identify the name of the organization furnishing the summary, and will include a link to the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) where the full written submission can be found.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05319 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-556 and 731-TA-1311 (Final)] Truck and Bus Tires From China Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of truck and bus tires from China, provided for in statistical reporting numbers 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that have been found by the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), and to be subsidized by the government of China.2

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    2 Chairman Rhonda K. Schmidtlein and Commissioner Irving A. Williamson determine that a domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports. Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert did not participate in these investigations.

    Background

    The Commission, pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)), instituted these investigations effective January 29, 2016, following receipt of a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of a preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of truck and bus tires from China were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on September 15, 2016 (81 FR 63494). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 13, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4673 (March 2017), entitled Truck and Bus Tires From China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-556 and 731-TA-1311 (Final).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05320 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Intravascular Administration Sets and Components Thereof, DN 3205; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Curlin Medical Inc., ZEVEX, Inc., and Moog Inc. on March 13, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain intravascular administration sets and components thereof. The complaint names as a respondent Yangzhou WeiDeLi Trade Co., Ltd. of China. The complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3205”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures).1 Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: March 13, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05323 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    On March 13, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Michael Cosola, Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00007.

    The proposed Consent Decree will resolve claims alleged under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Michael Cosola for costs incurred in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Twin Cities Iron and Metal Site (the “Site”) located in Bristol, Virginia. Michael Cosola is the current owner of Site property. The proposed Consent Decree imposes certain access and use restrictions at the Site, requires Mr. Cosola to perform a Phase II Site Assessment prior to disturbing soil on the property, and requires Mr. Cosola to record an environmental covenant on the Site property that will protect the remedy and run with the property in perpetuity.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Michael Cosola, Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-00007, D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-3-10712/2. All comments must be submitted no later than thirty (30) days after the publication date of this notice. Comments may be submitted either by email or by mail:

    To submit comments: Send them to: By e-mail [email protected]. By mail Assistant Attorney General, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees. We will provide a paper copy of the Consent Decree upon written request and payment of reproduction costs. Please mail your request and payment to: Consent Decree Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611.

    Please enclose a check or money order for $24.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $5.50.

    Robert Brook, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05322 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    MARINE MAMMAL COMMISSION Sunshine Act Notice

    Time and Date: The Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors on Marine Mammals will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, 5 April 2017, from 10:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, 6 April 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Friday, 7 April 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The Commission and the Committee also will meet in executive session on Wednesday, 5 April 2017, 8:00 to 10:00 a.m.

    Place: Ballroom I and II of the Sea Crest Beach Hotel, 350 Quaker Rd., North Falmouth, Massachusetts.

    Status: The executive session will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b) and applicable regulations. The session will be limited to discussions of internal agency practices, personnel, and the budget of the Commission. All other portions of the meeting will be open to the public. Public participation will be allowed as time permits and as determined to be desirable by the Chairman.

    Matters To Be Considered: The Commission and Committee will meet in public session to discuss a broad range of marine mammal science and conservation policy issues, with a particular focus on pinniped and large whales scientific and policy issues in the Northeast. The agenda for the meeting is posted on the Commission's Web site at www.mmc.gov/events-meetings-and-workshops/marine-mammal-commission-annual-meetings/2017-annual-meeting/.

    Contact Person For More Information: Luis F. Leandro, Director of Communications and External Affairs, Marine Mammal Commission, 4340 East-West Highway, Room 700, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-0087; email: [email protected]

    Dated: March 8, 2017. Rebecca J. Lent, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05317 Filed 3-15-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6820-31-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2017-030] Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules.

    DATES:

    NARA must receive requests for copies in writing by April 17, 2017. Once NARA completes appraisal of the records, we will send you a copy of the schedule you requested. We usually prepare appraisal memoranda that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. You may also request these. If you do, we will also provide them once we have completed the appraisal. You have 30 days after we send to you these requested documents in which to submit comments.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice by contacting Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA) using one of the following means:

    Mail: NARA (ACRA); 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Email: [email protected].

    FAX: 301-837-3698.

    You must cite the control number, which appears in parentheses after the name of the agency that submitted the schedule, and a mailing address. If you would like an appraisal report, please include that in your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Margaret Hawkins, Director, by mail at Records Appraisal and Agency Assistance (ACRA); National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001, by phone at 301-837-1799, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NARA publishes notice in the Federal Register for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records they no longer need to conduct agency business. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).

    Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. These schedules provide for timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.

    The schedules listed in this notice are media neutral unless otherwise specified. An item in a schedule is media neutral when an agency may apply the disposition instructions to records regardless of the medium in which it has created or maintains the records. Items included in schedules submitted to NARA on or after December 17, 2007, are media neutral unless the item is limited to a specific medium. (See 36 CFR 1225.12(e).)

    Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after a thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value.

    In addition to identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or notes that the schedule has agency-wide applicability (in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency); provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction); and includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it also includes information about the records. You may request additional information about the disposition process at the addresses above.

    Schedules Pending

    1. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (DAA-0440-2015-0009, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records related to research and statistical analysis, including demonstration projects and research-related records. Proposed for permanent retention are public use statistical research files and data sets.

    2. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (DAA-0443-2017-0001, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Certificates of Confidentiality records issued for research to include correspondence, denied applications, and issued applications.

    3. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DAA-0567-2015-0016, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to fugitive alien arrest operations, including operation worksheets and copies of relevant information related to the targeted fugitive.

    4. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (DAA-0560-2017-0006, 1 item, 1 temporary item). Records related to internal agency and State Department authorizations for agency staff to travel abroad to perform official duties.

    5. Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (DAA-0566-2016-0017, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Naturalization and citizenship supplementary and process administration forms, which do not document decisions to grant or deny citizenship benefits.

    6. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration (DAA-0433-2015-0004, 25 items, 14 temporary items). Records related to program development and management, administrative issuances, training and public affairs, and publications. Proposed for permanent retention are high level correspondence, program policies and directives, educational and public affairs products, and publications for the mining industry.

    7. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DAA-0571-2015-0007, 9 items, 8 temporary items). Hazardous materials information system records to include telephonic information on hazardous material incidents and workflow information on approvals of hazardous material processes, special permits, development of standards, enforcement cases, registration of hazardous materials carriers, approval of carrier design certification, and publication requests. Proposed for permanent retention is an incident reporting database.

    8. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (DAA-0571-2015-0019, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records pertaining to field operations, including case files, fitness memos, special project files, and investigator qualifications.

    9. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration (DAA-0015-2016-0007, 6 items, 6 temporary items). Records cover site protection, investigations, and technical assistance on security matters at agency facilities.

    10. Broadcasting Board of Governors, International Broadcasting Bureau (DAA-0517-2015-0001, 8 items, 5 temporary items). Records include general program review files and reports, customer surveys, public service announcements, foreign language versions of editorials, working files and reference materials. Proposed for permanent retention are editorials and related clearance correspondence, and leadership subject files.

    11. Export-Import Bank of the United States, Office of the Inspector General (DAA-0275-2016-0001, 8 items, 3 temporary items). Routine administrative and program records, including working papers. Proposed for permanent retention are significant investigations, audits and evaluations, annual reports to Congress, and program policy files.

    12. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (DAA-GRS-2016-0015, 20 items, 20 temporary items). General Records Schedule for employee compensation and benefits records including records of payroll, its calculation (deductions, withholding, time and attendance, leave donation) and deposit; tax statements; wage surveys; hiring incentives; workers' compensation; various subsidy programs; Family Medical Leave Act program; and program administration.

    13. Peace Corps, Office of Global Operations (DAA-0490-2017-0002, 2 items, 1 temporary item). Records include routine program files and working papers. Proposed for permanent retention are policies, assessments, and related reports.

    Laurence Brewer, Chief Records Officer for the U.S. Government.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05348 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0123] Information Collection: “Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations” AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by May 16, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0123. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T-2 F43, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0123 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0123.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16270A052.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0123 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

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

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

    II. Background

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

    1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR part 34, “Licenses for Radiography and Radiation Safety Requirements for Radiographic Operations.”

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0007.

    3 Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number, if applicable:N/A

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Applications for new licenses and amendments may be submitted at any time (on occasion). Applications for renewal are submitted every 10 years. Reports are submitted as events occur.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Applicants for and holders of specific licenses authorizing the use of licensed radioactive material for radiography.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 3,031.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 578.

    9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 260,457.

    10. Abstract: Part 34 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes radiation safety requirements for the use of radioactive material in industrial radiography. The information in the applications, reports and records is used by the NRC staff to ensure that the health and safety of the public is protected and that licensee possession and use of source and byproduct material is in compliance with license and regulatory requirements.

    III. Specific Requests for Comments.

    The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

    1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

    2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

    4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05354 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0275] Information Collection: Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments by May 16, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0275. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Mail Stop: T-5 F53, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0275 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0275. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2016-0275 on this Web site.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The supporting statement is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16354B305.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0275 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.

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

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

    II. Background

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.

    1. The title of the information collection: Comprehensive Decommissioning Program, Including Annual Data Collection.

    2. OMB approval number: 3150-0206.

    3. Type of submission: Extension.

    4. The form number, if applicable:N/A

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: Annually.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: All Agreement States who have signed Section 274(b) Agreements with the NRC.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses: 69 (45 responses from Agreement States with sites of interest +24 responses from Agreement States with no sites of interest).

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents: 37 (13 Agreement States respondents with sites of interest +24 Agreement States respondents with no sites of interest).

    9. The estimated number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request: 432 (360 hours from Agreement States with sites of interest +72 hours from Agreement States with no sites of interest).

    10. Abstract: The Agreement States will be asked to provide information about uranium recovery and complex sites undergoing decommissioning regulated by the Agreement States on an annual basis. The information request will allow the NRC to compile, in a centralized location, more complete information on the status of decommissioning and decontamination in the United States in order to provide a national perspective on decommissioning. The information will be made available to the public by the NRC in order to ensure openness and promote communication to enhance public knowledge of the national decommissioning program. This does not apply to information, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information provided by the Agreement States, that is considered privileged or confidential.

    III. Specific Requests for Comments.

    The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:

    1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?

    2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate?

    3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

    4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of March 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05355 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Purchase of Commercial Vehicles AGENCY:

    Postal Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment.

    SUMMARY:

    To comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Postal Service intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the purchase of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) delivery vehicles to accommodate route growth and replace aged, high-maintenance vehicles over the next three years. This PEA will evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action versus the alternatives of leasing the vehicles in lieu of purchase, and taking no action.

    DATES:

    Comments should be received no later than April 3, 2017. In May of 2017, the Postal Service will publish a Notice of Availability to announce the availability of the Draft PEA and solicit comments on the Draft PEA during a second 15-day public comment period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may direct comments, questions, or requests for additional information to: Davon Collins, Environmental Counsel, U.S. Postal Service, Room 6333, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260, telephone (202) 268-4570, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice concerns a proposed purchase of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) delivery vehicles, and the intent of the Postal Service, pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, its implementing procedures at 39 CFR 775, and the President's Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), to prepare a PEA to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed action versus the alternatives of leasing the vehicles in lieu of purchase, or taking no action.

    To stabilize its delivery fleet pending the development of a longer-term solution to its vehicle needs, the Postal Service is considering the purchase of approximately 25,000 left-hand drive and right-hand drive COTS delivery vehicles to accommodate route growth over the next three years and to replace approximately 18,000 aged and high-maintenance cost vehicles. The prospective PEA will be prepared in accordance with NEPA, and will consider the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic environments. To assist in this process, the Postal Service is soliciting the public's input and comments.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05304 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80226; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-22] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Data Collection Requirements in Rule 3317 March 13, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 28, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3317 to modify the date of Appendix B Web site data publication pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan”).

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

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Rule 3317(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements) 3 implements the data collection and Web site publication requirements of the Plan.4 Commentary .08 to Rule 3317 provides, among other things, that the requirement that the Exchange make certain data publicly available on the Exchange Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan shall commence at the beginning of the Pilot Period,5 and that Phlx shall make data for the Pre-Pilot Period publicly available on the Exchange Web site pursuant to Appendix B and C to the Plan by February 28, 2017.6

    3See Rule 3317(b). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77458 (March 28, 2016), 81 FR 18919 (April 1, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-39).

    4 The Participants filed the Plan to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014. See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated August 25, 2014 (“SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No 72460 (June 24, 2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014); see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015).

    5 Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms have the meaning ascribed to them in Rule 3317.

    6 On November 30, 2016, the SEC granted exemptive relief to the Participants to, among other things, delay the publication of Web site data pursuant to Appendices B and C to the Plan until February 28, 2017, and to delay the ongoing Web site publication by ninety days such that data would be published within 120 calendar days following the end of the month. See Letter from David S. Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, to Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, dated November 30, 2016; see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79545 (December 14, 2016), 81 FR 92916 (December 20, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-118).

    Phlx is proposing amendments to Commentary .08 to Rule 3317 to delay the date by which Pre-Pilot and Pilot Appendix B data is to be made publicly available on the Exchange's Web site from February 28, 2017, until April 28, 2017. Appendix C data for the Pre-Pilot Period through the month of January 2017 will be published on the Exchange's Web site on February 28, 2017, and, thereafter, on the original 30-day schedule.7 As some of the data reporting requirements set forth in Rule 3317 require members to report data to their Designated Examining Authority (“DEA”), which may not be Phlx, the Exchange is also proposing to add references in Commentary .08 to reflect the fact that the Exchange or the DEA may be publishing such data.

    7 Since, under Rule 3317(b)(4), Phlx is not independently publishing Market Maker profitability data collected pursuant to Item I of Appendix C of the Plan, no corresponding change to the language of Rule 3317(b)(4) relating to the timing of the publication of Appendix C data for the Pilot Period is needed.

    In the SRO Tick Size Plan Proposal, the Participants stated that the public data will be made available for free “on a disaggregated basis by trading center” on the Web sites of the Participants and the Designated Examining Authorities.8 However, market participants have expressed confidentiality concerns regarding this approach for over-the-counter (“OTC”) data.9 Thus, Phlx is filing the instant proposed rule change to provide additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data related to OTC activity in furtherance of the objectives of the Plan.10 Pursuant to this amendment, Appendix B data publication will be delayed until April 28, 2017. The Participants anticipate filing additional proposed rule changes to address Appendix B data publication.

    8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November 3, 2014), 79 FR 66423 (November 7, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed National Market System Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program on a One-Year Pilot Basis, File No. 4-657) (“Tick Size Plan Proposal”).

    9See letters from Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2016 (“Citadel letter”); and William Hebert, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2016 (“FIF letter”).

    10 In connection with its filing to implement a similar change in its rules, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. is also is submitting an exemptive request to the SEC on behalf of all Plan Participants requesting relief from the relevant requirements of the Plan.

    Phlx has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. The operative date of the proposed rule change will be the date of filing.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,12 in particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. Phlx also believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,13 which requires that Exchange rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants, and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the liquidity and trading of the common stock of small-capitalization companies. Phlx believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it is in furtherance of the objectives of Section VII(A) of the Plan in that it is designed to provide the Exchange with additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of Appendix B data, to comply with the Plan's requirements that the data made publicly available will not identify the trading center that generated the data.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change implements the provisions of the Plan.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 14 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.15

    14 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing so that it may become operative on February 28, 2017.

    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is intended to address confidentiality concerns raised in connection with the publication of OTC Appendix B data by permitting the Exchange to delay Web site publication of its Appendix B data from February 28, 2017 to April 28, 2017.16 The Exchange notes that the delay would provide additional time to assess a means of addressing the confidentiality concerns. The Exchange notes that it expects Participants to file proposed rule changes related to publishing Appendix B data.

    16See supra note 9. The Commission notes that FINRA has submitted a proposed rule change to delay the publication of OTC Appendix B data. See SR-FINRA-2017-005.

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow the Exchange to delay publication of its Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. As noted above, commenters continue to raise concerns about the publication of OTC Appendix B data.17 Delaying publication of Exchange's Appendix B data 18 will prevent the publication of partial (i.e., Exchange-only) Appendix B data required under the Plan. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be operative on February 28, 2017.19

    17 The Commission notes that FINRA has filed a proposed rule change that is intended to mitigate confidentiality concerns raised by commenters regarding the publication of OTC Appendix B data. See SR-FINRA-2017-006.

    18 The Commission notes that other Participants have proposed to delay the publication of their Appendix B data until April 28, 2017. See SR-BatsBYX-2017-05; SR-BatsBZX-2017-15; SR-BatsEDGA-2017-05; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-13; SR-BX-2017-016; SR-CHX-2017-05; SR-FINRA-2017-005; SR-IEX-2017-07; SR-NASDAQ-2017-024; SR-NYSE-2017-10; SR-NYSEArca-2017-19; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-11.

    19 For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

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

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

    Electronic Comments

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

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-Phlx-2017-22 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-22. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-22, and should be submitted on or before April 7, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-05341 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80223; File No. SR-IEX-2016-18] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange, LLC; Order Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change To: (i) Amend Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8) To Modify the Operation of the Primary Peg Order Type; (ii) Amend Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii) Regarding Price Sliding in Locked and Crossed Markets To Simplify the Price Sliding Process for Both Primary Peg Orders and Discretionary Peg Orders Resting on or Posting to the Order Book; and (iii) Make Minor Technical Changes To Conform Certain Terminology March 13, 2017. I. Introduction

    On November 29, 2016, the Investors Exchange LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to: (i) Amend IEX Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8) to modify the operation of the primary peg order type; (ii) amend IEX Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii) regarding price sliding in locked and crossed markets to modify the price sliding process for both primary peg orders and discretionary peg orders resting on or posting to the IEX order book; and (iii) make minor technical changes to conform certain terminology. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 13, 2016.3 On January 26, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79502 (December 7, 2016), 81 FR 90035 (December 13, 2016) (“Notice”).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79883, 82 FR 9083 (February 2, 2017). The Commission designated March 13, 2017 as the date by which the Commission shall approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove, the proposed rule change.

    II. Description of the Proposal Primary Peg Order Type Functionality

    The Exchange has proposed to amend Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8) to modify the operation of the primary peg order type offered by the Exchange. Currently, a primary peg order is a non-displayed order that the Exchange system automatically adjusts (upon entry and when posting to the Exchange order book) to be equal to and ranked at the less aggressive of the near-side primary quote (i.e., the national best bid (“NBB”) for buy orders and the national best offer (“NBO”) for sell orders) or the order's limit price, if any.6 While resting on the Exchange's order book, the order is automatically adjusted by the system in response to changes in the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders up (down) to the order's limit price, if any.7

    6See Rules 11.190(a)(3) and (b)(8); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90035.

    7See id.

    Under the proposal, the operation of the primary peg order type would be amended such that the Exchange system would automatically adjust a primary peg order, upon entry and when the order is posting to the Exchange order book, to be equal to and ranked at the less aggressive of one (1) minimum price variant (“MPV”) less aggressive than the primary quote (i.e., one MPV below (above) the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders) or the order's limit price, as applicable.8 The primary peg order would continue to be a non-displayed order type, and the Exchange's system would continue to automatically adjust a primary peg order in response to changes in the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders up (down) to the order's limit price, if any.9

    8See proposed Rules 11.190(a)(3) and (b)(8); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036. In its proposal, the Exchange noted that the BATS BZX exchange's primary pegged order type has an offset feature that allows primary pegged orders on that exchange to rest more passively than the primary quote. See Notice, supra note 3, at 90036-37.

    9See proposed Rules 11.190(a)(3) and 11.190(b)(8). The Exchange has not proposed to amend the order modifiers and parameters currently applicable to primary peg orders as set forth in Rule 11.190(b)(8)(A)-(J), and such order modifiers and parameters would continue apply to the amended primary peg order type. See Notice, supra note 3, at 90037 and n.13.

    In addition, under the proposal, in order to meet the limit price of active orders on the Exchange order book, a primary peg order would be able to exercise price discretion from its resting price to a discretionary price (defined as the primary quote), except during periods of quote instability as defined in Rule 11.190(g) 10 or where the primary peg order is resting at its limit price.11 Specifically, as set forth in proposed Rule 11.190(b)(8)(K), if the Exchange system were to determine the NBB for a particular security to be an unstable quote in accordance with Rule 11.190(g), it would restrict buy primary peg orders in that security from exercising price discretion to trade against interest at the NBB (and thus they would be executable only at their resting price one MPV less aggressive than the NBB, subject to any limit price); likewise, if the Exchange system were to determine the NBO for a particular security to be an unstable quote in accordance with Rule 11.190(g), it would restrict sell primary peg orders in that security from exercising price discretion to trade against interest at the NBO (and thus they would be executable only at their resting price one MPV less aggressive than the NBO, subject to any limit price).12

    10 As set forth in Rule 11.190(g), the Exchange utilizes real time relative quoting activity of protected quotations and a proprietary mathematical calculation (the “quote instability calculation”) to assess the probability of an imminent change to the current protected NBB to a lower price or protected NBO to a higher price for a particular security (“quote instability factor”). See Rule 11.190(g); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036 n.12. When the quoting activity meets predefined criteria and the quote instability factor calculated is greater than the Exchange's defined threshold (“quote instability threshold”), the system treats the quote as not stable (“quote instability” or a “crumbling quote”). See id. During all other times, the quote is considered stable (“quote stability”). The system independently assesses the quote stability of the protected NBB and protected NBO for each security. See id. When the system determines that a quote, either the protected NBB or the protected NBO, is unstable, the determination remains in effect at that price level for ten (10) milliseconds. See id. The system will only treat one side of the protected NBBO as unstable in a particular security at any given time. See id.

    11See proposed Rules 11.190(a)(3) and (b)(8). In its proposal, the Exchange represented that the manner in which a primary peg order would exercise discretion is similar to the manner in which the Exchange's discretionary peg order exercises discretion. See Notice, supra note 3, at 90036.

    12See proposed Rule 11.190(b)(8)(K).

    Further, as proposed, when exercising price discretion, a primary peg order would maintain its time priority position among non-displayed orders (and behind any displayed orders) at its resting price and would be prioritized behind any non-displayed (and displayed) interest resting at the discretionary price for the duration of that book processing action.13 If multiple primary peg orders were to exercise price discretion during the same book processing action, they would maintain their relative time priority at the discretionary price.14

    13See proposed Rule 11.190(b)(8); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036. Displayed orders have precedence over non-displayed orders at a given price level in the IEX order book. See Rule 11.220(a)(1)(B).

    14See proposed Rule 11.190(b)(8); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036. In its proposal, the Exchange represented that the proposed priority rules for the primary peg order are identical to those for the Exchange's discretionary peg order. See Notice, supra note 3, at 90037.

    According to the Exchange, the primary peg order type, as proposed, is designed to offer Exchange members an opportunity to rest orders one MPV less aggressive than the primary quote but remain eligible to exercise price discretion up (down) to the NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders, and to protect such orders from unfavorable executions by preventing the exercise of such price discretion when the Exchange has determined that the market is moving against the order (i.e., a crumbling quote is detected).15

    15See Notice, supra note 3, at 90036.

    Price Sliding in Locked or Crossed Markets

    The Exchange also has proposed to amend Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii) regarding the price sliding process for both primary peg and discretionary peg orders in locked and crossed markets. Currently, in the event the NBBO becomes locked or crossed, primary peg and discretionary peg orders resting on or posting to the order book are priced to the less aggressive of either: (i) The prior non-locked or non-crossing near side quote (i.e., the prior unlocked or uncrossed NBB (NBO) for buy (sell) orders), or (ii) one MPV less aggressive than the locking or crossing price.16 Under the proposal, the first alternative under the current rule would be eliminated such that in locked or crossed markets, primary peg and discretionary peg orders would slide to one MPV less aggressive than the locking or crossing price rather than remaining at the prior non-locked or non-crossed price when such price is less aggressive.17

    16See Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90035-36.

    17See proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) and (D)(ii); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036.

    Specifically, proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii) would provide that in the event the market becomes locked, primary peg orders and discretionary peg orders resting on or posting to the order book would be priced one MPV less aggressive than the locking price.18 Proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D)(ii) would provide that in the event that the market becomes crossed, primary peg orders and discretionary peg orders resting on or posting to the order book would be priced one MPV less aggressive than the crossing price, i.e., the lowest protected offer for buy orders and the highest protected bid for sell orders, before posting.19 In addition, proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D)(ii) would specify that if a primary peg order is submitted to the Exchange while the market is crossed, the order would post to the order book priced one MPV less aggressive than the crossing price.20 In its proposal, the Exchange noted that its goal with respect to its rules for price sliding primary peg and discretionary peg orders in locked or crossed markets is to ensure that such orders do not rest at locking or crossing prices.21

    18See proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(C)(ii).

    19See proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D)(ii).

    20See id.; see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90036-37.

    21See Notice, supra note 3, at 90037.

    Technical Change

    Lastly, the Exchange has proposed to make a technical change to Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D)(ii) to refer to the “crossing price” rather than the “crossed quote” in order to be consistent with other references within the rule.22

    22See proposed Rule 11.190(h)(3)(D)(ii); see also Notice, supra note 3, at 90037.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.23 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,24 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    23 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange has described the proposed amendments to its primary peg order type as combining an offset feature offered by another exchange that allows primary pegged orders on that exchange to rest more passively than the primary quote, with the discretionary feature of the Exchange's discretionary peg order type.25 As noted above, according to the Exchange, its amended primary peg order type would be designed to enable a member (or customer thereof) to rest non-displayed trading interest on the Exchange order book at a price inferior to the primary quote and remain available to execute against an incoming order seeking to cross the spread and execute at prices equal to or more aggressive (from the taker's perspective) than such quote, while minimizing adverse selection to the poster (if its resting order were to “jump” to the primary quote) when the market appears to be moving against the resting primary peg order (i.e., moving lower in the case of a buy order or higher in the case of a sell order).26 The Exchange believes that adding to its primary peg order type both an offset feature and the discretionary functionality that currently is applied to the discretionary peg order type would incentivize members and their customers to post more pa