Federal Register Vol. 82, No.72,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 72 (April 17, 2017)

Page Range18079-18213
FR Document

82_FR_72
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 18110 - Public Comments and Hearing Regarding Administration Report on Significant Trade DeficitsPDF
82 FR 18161 - Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency MeetingPDF
82 FR 18158 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 18123 - Application for New Awards; Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; Part II of the Formula Grant Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE) ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 18127 - Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard ActPDF
82 FR 18130 - Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard ActPDF
82 FR 18134 - Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard ActPDF
82 FR 18129 - Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard ActPDF
82 FR 18128 - Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard ActPDF
82 FR 18131 - Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2017; Small, Rural School Achievement ProgramPDF
82 FR 18096 - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Highly Automated Commercial Vehicles; Public Listening SessionPDF
82 FR 18204 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Armor Court” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 18087 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, ILPDF
82 FR 18165 - Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: the Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension PlanPDF
82 FR 18119 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Northeast Region Observer Providers RequirementsPDF
82 FR 18117 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 18120 - North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 18118 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
82 FR 18117 - Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing PermitsPDF
82 FR 18141 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 18211 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13667PDF
82 FR 18151 - Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant BacteriaPDF
82 FR 18150 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 18168 - New Postal ProductsPDF
82 FR 18105 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 203-Moses Lake, Washington, Proposed Revision to Production Authority, SGL Automotive Carbon Fibers, LLC, (Carbon Fiber), Moses Lake, WashingtonPDF
82 FR 18162 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittees on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 18136 - Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use ActPDF
82 FR 18101 - Notice of Intent To Certify Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (Alabama); Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 18100 - Opportunity for Designation in the Montana Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 18099 - Notice of Intent To Certify South Carolina Department of Agriculture (South Carolina); Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 18101 - Opportunity for Designation in the Georgia Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This AreaPDF
82 FR 18114 - Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 18112 - Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
82 FR 18137 - El Cabo Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 18140 - Driftwood LNG LLC, Driftwood Pipeline LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 18137 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 18142 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 18139 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 18136 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 18141 - Control Technology, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
82 FR 18139 - Neshkoro Power Associates, LLC; Renaissance Hydro Associates; Wisconsin8, LLC; Notice of Transfer of ExemptionPDF
82 FR 18138 - Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' MeetingsPDF
82 FR 18138 - 83WI 8me, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 18102 - Designation for the Decatur, IN AreaPDF
82 FR 18152 - Determination and Declaration Regarding Emergency Use of Injectable Treatments for Nerve Agent or Certain Insecticide (Organophosphorus and/or Carbamate) PoisoningPDF
82 FR 18105 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 18115 - Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2014-2015PDF
82 FR 18205 - Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation-Abandonment Exemption-in Olmsted County, MinnesotaPDF
82 FR 18108 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
82 FR 18111 - Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final ResultsPDF
82 FR 18161 - Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 18082 - Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan EnginesPDF
82 FR 18155 - Threatened Wildlife; Incidental Take Permit Application and Environmental Assessment for Road Construction Activities; Hernando and Citrus Counties, FLPDF
82 FR 18156 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of Eight Endangered Animal SpeciesPDF
82 FR 18098 - The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program; Transit Asset ManagementPDF
82 FR 18206 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 18087 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mill River, New Haven, CTPDF
82 FR 18148 - Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 18147 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 18143 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 18147 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 18145 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 18142 - Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 18146 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 18145 - SES Performance Review BoardPDF
82 FR 18118 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 18213 - Open Meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on InsurancePDF
82 FR 18199 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 18188 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 18202 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 18204 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Annual Report-J-NONIMMIGRANT Exchange Visitor ProgramPDF
82 FR 18203 - Data Collection Available for Public CommentsPDF
82 FR 18211 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons Pursuant to Executive Order 13391PDF
82 FR 18099 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 18160 - Distribution of 2015 Satellite Royalty FundsPDF
82 FR 18162 - Radio Receiver Systems: R&D Innovation Needs and Impacts on Technology PolicyPDF
82 FR 18204 - Overseas Schools Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 18158 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
82 FR 18180 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equities Options PlatformPDF
82 FR 18189 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Certain of the Initial and Annual Listing Fee Provisions Included in the NYSE MKT Company GuidePDF
82 FR 18191 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET TechnologyPDF
82 FR 18182 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 18199 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Order Price ProtectionsPDF
82 FR 18173 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious ErrorsPDF
82 FR 18171 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Expand the Execution Range for a Customer Cross OrderPDF
82 FR 18196 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes), Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross)PDF
82 FR 18169 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 18169 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 18168 - Product Change-Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 18169 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
82 FR 18104 - Notice of Petitions by Firms for Determination of Eligibility To Apply for Trade Adjustment AssistancePDF
82 FR 18120 - Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Closed Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 18103 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 18102 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017-2019 Company Organization SurveyPDF
82 FR 18163 - Regulatory Analysis GuidelinesPDF
82 FR 18212 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form W-12PDF
82 FR 18121 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA)PDF
82 FR 18153 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 18153 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 18153 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 18212 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Income, Gift, and Estate TaxPDF
82 FR 18210 - The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 18208 - Hyundai Motor America, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential NoncompliancePDF
82 FR 18154 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG)PDF
82 FR 18088 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
82 FR 18154 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Debt Collection Financial StatementPDF
82 FR 18084 - Airworthiness Directives; Learjet, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 18090 - Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications RegulationsPDF
82 FR 18079 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
82 FR 18165 - Formation of SES Performance Review BoardPDF

Issue

82 72 Monday, April 17, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18099 2017-07649
Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18103-18104 2017-07625 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017-2019 Company Organization Survey, 18102-18103 2017-07624 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Mill River, New Haven, CT, 18087-18088 2017-07668 Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL, 18087 2017-07721 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Economic Development Administration

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board NOTICES Distributions: 2015 Satellite Royalty Funds, 18160-18161 2017-07648 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Meetings: Threat Reduction Advisory Committee, 18120-18121 2017-07626 Economic Development Economic Development Administration NOTICES Trade Adjustment Assistance Eligibility; Petitions, 18104-18105 2017-07627 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, 18121-18123 2017-07620 Applications for New Awards: Deadline for Fiscal Year 2017 Small, Rural School Achievement Program, 18131-18134 2017-07724 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; Part II of the Formula Grant Electronic Application System for Indian Education Applications, 18123-18127 2017-07732 Arbitration Panel Decisions under Randolph-Sheppard Act, 18127-18131, 18134-18135 2017-07727 2017-07728 2017-07729 2017-07730 2017-07731 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Self-Certifications: Coal Capability under Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act, 18136 2017-07703
Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 18079-18082 2017-07076 General Electric Company Turbofan Engines, 18082-18084 2017-07677 Learjet, Inc., Airplanes, 18084-18087 2017-07551 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, 18090-18096 2017-07547 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18142-18148 2017-07661 2017-07662 2017-07663 2017-07664 2017-07665 2017-07666 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: High-Cost Universal Service Support; Correction, 18146-18147 2017-07660 Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 18145 2017-07659 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 18088-18089 2017-07612 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18154 2017-07611 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant, 18154-18155 2017-07613 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Driftwood LNG, LLC; Driftwood Pipeline, LLC, 18140-18141 2017-07695 Combined Filings, 18136-18137, 18139-18142 2017-07691 2017-07692 2017-07693 2017-07711 Exemptions Transfers: Neshkoro Power Associates, LLC; Renaissance Hydro Associates; Wisconsin8, LLC, 18139 2017-07689 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: 83WI 8me, LLC, 18138 2017-07687 El Cabo Wind, LLC, 18137-18138 2017-07696 Permit Applications: Control Technology, Inc., 18141-18142 2017-07690 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Northern Natural Gas Co., 18137 2017-07694 Staff Attendances, 18138-18139 2017-07688 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Highly Automated Commercial Vehicles; Public Listening Session, 18096-18098 2017-07723 NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 18206-18208 2017-07672 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration PROPOSED RULES National Public Transportation Safety Plan, Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management; Withdrawal, 18098 2017-07673 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species: Incidental Take Permit Application and Environmental Assessment for Road Construction Activities; Hernando and Citrus Counties, FL, 18155-18156 2017-07676 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of Eight Endangered Animal Species, 18156-18158 2017-07674 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Meetings: Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee, 18148-18150 2017-07667 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 18211 2017-07651 2017-07710 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: SGL Automotive Carbon Fibers, LLC, Foreign-Trade Zone 203, Moses Lake, WA, 18105 2017-07705 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Designations: Decatur, IN Area, 18102 2017-07686 Georgia Area, 18101-18102 2017-07699 Montana Area, 18100 2017-07701 Intents to Certify: Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, 18101 2017-07702 South Carolina Department of Agriculture, 18099-18100 2017-07700 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Food and Drug Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Determinations and Declarations Regarding Emergency Uses of Injectable Treatments for Nerve Agent or Certain Insecticide (Organophosphorus and/or Carbamate) Poisoning, 18152-18153 2017-07685 Meetings: National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 18150-18151 2017-07707 Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, 18151-18152 2017-07708
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18212 2017-07621 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Gift and Estate Tax, 18212-18213 2017-07616 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 18112-18113 2017-07697 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Republic of Korea, 18105-18108 2017-07684 Chlorinated Isocyanurates from People's Republic of China, 18111-18112 2017-07679 Pure Magnesium from People's Republic of China, 18114 2017-07698 Steel Wire Garment Hangers from People's Republic of China; Final Results of Administrative Review, 2014-2015, 18115-18116 2017-07683 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain, 18108-18110 2017-07680 Hearings: Administration Report on Significant Trade Deficits, 18110-18111 2017-07827 Justice Department Justice Department NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees: Clean Water Act, 18158 2017-07642 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 18158-18160 2017-07793 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Credit National Credit Union Administration NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 18161 2017-07801 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance: Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 18210-18211 2017-07615 Hyundai Motor America, 18208-18210 2017-07614 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 18153 2017-07617 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 18153 2017-07618 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 18153-18154 2017-07619 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18118-18119 2017-07658 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Northeast Region Observer Providers Requirements, 18119 2017-07717 Exempted Fishing Permits: Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries, 18117 2017-07713 Meetings: Fisheries of Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 18118 2017-07714 North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 18117-18118, 18120 2017-07715 2017-07716 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations, 18161-18162 2017-07678 Radio Receiver Systems: R and D Innovation Needs and Impacts on Technology Policy; Workshop, 18162 2017-07645 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Guidance: Regulatory Analysis Guidelines, 18163-18165 2017-07623 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittees on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment, 18162-18163 2017-07704 Nuclear Waste Technical Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board NOTICES Formation of SES Performance Review Board, 18165 2017-06998 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan, 18165-18168 2017-07719 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 18168 2017-07706 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 18169 2017-07629 Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 18168-18169 2017-07628 2017-07630 2017-07631 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18169-18171 2017-07632 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18188-18189, 18199 2017-07655 2017-07656 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 18180-18182 2017-07640 BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 18171-18173 2017-07634 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 18199-18202 2017-07636 Nasdaq ISE, LLC, 18173-18180, 18191-18196 2017-07635 2017-07638 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 18182-18188 2017-07637 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 18196-18199 2017-07633 NYSE MKT, LLC, 18189-18191 2017-07639 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 18202-18204 2017-07644 2017-07647 2017-07650 2017-07652 2017-07654 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Annual Report—J-NONIMMIGRANT Exchange Visitor Program, 18204-18205 2017-07653 Charter Renewals: Overseas Schools Advisory Council, 18204 2017-07643 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Armor Court, 18204 2017-07722 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Abandonment Exemptions: Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad Corp., Olmsted County, MN, 18205 2017-07681 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Meetings: Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, 18213 2017-07657
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 72 Monday, April 17, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7526; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-217-AD; Amendment 39-18852; AD 2017-08-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by the discovery of corroded circlips in fuel vent protectors (FVP) having a certain part number. This AD requires an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of the FVP, and replacement if necessary; and application of sealant on certain nuts and bolts of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) duct assembly. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7526.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7526; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The SNPRM published in the Federal Register on October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72748) (“the SNPRM”). We preceded the SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2015 (80 FR 79742) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of the FVP, and replacement if necessary. The NPRM was prompted by the discovery of corroded circlips in FVPs having a certain part number. The SNPRM proposed to require an additional action for sealant application on some nuts and bolts on the NACA duct assembly, and to provide a grace period to the compliance time. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corroded circlips. Such corrosion could lead to failure of the circlips and consequent movement of the FVP and result in a reduction of the flame protector capability of the FVP cartridge, which could result in damage to the airplane in case of lightning impact or fire on the ground.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued AD 2016-0114, dated June 15, 2016; corrected June 23, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

On each aeroplane wing, a NACA duct assembly is installed, including a Fuel Vent Protector (FVP) which is used as flame arrestor. This FVP is maintained in its NACA duct assembly by a circlip (also known as C-clip). Following a wing water pressure test, the FVP is removed and dried with heat. During an inspection after this test, several circlips were reported to be discoloured. Investigation revealed that a batch of circlips fitted on some FVP Part Number (P/N) 786073-1-0 have an increased risk of corrosion due to a manufacturing quality issue.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to circlip failure and consequent FVP movement, reducing the flame protector capability of the FVP cartridge, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane in case of lightning impact or fire on ground.

Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A320-28-1221, providing instructions for identification by serial number (s/n) and removal from service of the affected FVP P/N 786073-1-0, and EASA issued AD 2014-0234, later revised, to require those actions and to implement installation requirements for the FVP.

After that [EASA] AD was issued, one step in the FVP re-installation instructions was identified as missing. Consequently, Airbus revised SB A320-28-1221 to provide instructions for sealant installation on some nuts and bolts on the NACA duct assembly.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0234R1, which is superseded, and requires additional work for aeroplanes already modified in accordance with Airbus SB A320-28-1221 original issue or Revision 01.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7526. Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We received no comments on the SNPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-28-1221, Revision 02, dated January 11, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspecting the FVP to determine the part number and serial number, replacing any affected FVP, and applying sealant to the nuts and bolts of the NACA duct assembly. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 19 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $25,640 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $190,785, or $27,255 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-08-03 Airbus: Amendment 39-18852; Docket No. FAA-2015-7526; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-217-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes specified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by the discovery of corroded circlips in fuel vent protectors (FVP) having a certain part number. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corroded circlips. Such corrosion could lead to failure of the circlips and consequent movement of the FVP and result in a reduction of the flame protector capability of the FVP cartridge, which could result in damage to the airplane in case of lightning impact or fire on the ground.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection of FVP and Corrective Action

For airplanes having a manufacturer serial number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD: At the time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, do an inspection to determine the part number and serial number of the FVP. If the FVP has part number (P/N) 786073-1-0 with a serial number that is specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, and the FVP is not marked “Amdt B,” replace the FVP with a serviceable part, at the time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1221, Revision 02, dated January 11, 2016. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the FVP can be conclusively determined from that review.

Figure 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (i) of This AD—Affected Airplane Manufacturer Serial Numbers 5438 5461 5485 through 5488 inclusive 5536 5441 5463 5490 through 5493 inclusive 5539 5444 5464 5495 through 5505 inclusive 5541 5445 5469 5507 through 5515 inclusive 5544 5447 5473 through 5478 inclusive 5517 5547 5457 5481 5518 5551 5459 5482 5520 through 5527 inclusive 5553 5460 5483 5530 5556 Figure 2 to Paragraphs (g) and (i) of This AD—Affected Serial Numbers for Part Number 786073-1-0 [Manufactured during August 2012] Serial No. 786073IN0xxxx (xxxx indicates the last four digits) 3752 3821 3868 3911 3966 4010 3753 3826 3871 3914 3967 4011 3754 3827 3874 3922 3969 4013 3755 3829 3877 3925 3971 4017 3756 3830 3878 3927 3972 4019 3757 3833 3882 3930 3977 4023 3758 3834 3893 3937 3978 4024 3759 3836 3897 3938 3980 4025 3760 3839 3898 3940 3981 4026 3761 3840 3899 3945 3982 4039 3787 3848 3900 3946 3983 4048 3788 3849 3901 3947 3984 4065 3810 3850 3904 3948 3985 4066 3812 3851 3905 3951 3986 4068 3814 3853 3906 3961 3987 4070 3817 3859 3907 3962 3996 4184 3819 3860 3908 3964 3997 4187 3820 3867 3910 3965 4009 None (h) Compliance Times for the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of This AD

Do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the earliest of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(1) Before the accumulation of 5,000 total flight cycles after the date of manufacture of the airplane.

(2) Before the accumulation of 7,500 total flight hours after the date of manufacture of the airplane.

(3) Within 30 months after the date of manufacture of the airplane.

(i) Exclusion From Actions Required by Paragraph (g) of This AD

An airplane that does not have a manufacturer serial number specified in figure 1 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD is excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, provided that a FVP having P/N 786073-1-0 with a serial number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD has not been installed on that airplane after July 2012. If a FVP having P/N 786073-1-0 with a serial number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD is installed, or the serial number cannot be identified: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the FVP with a serviceable part, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1221, Revision 02, dated January 11, 2016. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable if it can be conclusively determined from that review that a FVP having a serial number specified in figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD has not been installed on that airplane after July 2012.

(j) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, a FVP having P/N 786073-1-0 and a serial number listed in figure 2 to paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD may be installed on any airplane, provided the FVP is marked with “Amdt B.”

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0114, dated June 15, 2016; corrected June 23, 2016; for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-7526.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-28-1221, Revision 02, dated January 11, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 31, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-07076 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9167; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-20-AD; Amendment 39-18855; AD 2017-08-06] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain General Electric Company (GE) GE90 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by a report of an engine and airplane fire. This AD requires replacing affected fuel/oil lube/servo coolers (“main fuel oil heat exchangers”) with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected] You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9167.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9167; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain GE GE90 turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2016 (81 FR 88145) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a report of an engine and airplane fire. The NPRM proposed to require replacing affected fuel/oil lube/servo coolers (“main fuel oil heat exchangers”) with a part eligible for installation. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a main fuel oil heat exchanger, which could result in an engine fire.

Comments

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

Request To Revise Applicability Reference

All Nippon Airways, MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH (MTU), and Air New Zealand commented that this AD should list all vendor part numbers referenced in GE Service Bulletin (SB) GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016. This would ensure that the applicability of the AD is not misinterpreted.

We agree. We changed this AD by adding a reference in the Applicability paragraph to the respective vendor number after the part number.

Request To Clarify Tracking of Accomplishment of AD

MTU commented that clarification of the accomplishment of this AD is needed because GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016, requires marking repaired parts with the suffix “A” at the end of the serial number but the proposed AD does not. MTU indicated that “GE fleet highlites” note that the suffix is not part of the actual serial number and must not appear on EASA or FAA documents.

We disagree. Although we are not requiring that parts be marked with the suffix “A” to reflect compliance with this AD, these parts are typically marked after repair per the requirements of GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034. Operators are free, however, to devise an alternate tracking system, i.e. through part markings and/or records, to show that the part has been repaired and is eligible for installation. We did not change this AD.

Request To Reference Latest Service Bulletin

MTU requested that we change the reference to GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016, to the “latest version” of this SB.

We disagree. We cannot require compliance to a document that does not exist. We note that operators may submit a request for an alternate method of compliance if this SB is revised after the publication of this AD. We did not change this AD.

Request To Revise References to Main Heat Exchanger

GE requested that references in the AD to the “main heat exchanger” be changed to the “main fuel oil heat exchanger” and/or the “MFOHE.” GE indicated that “main fuel oil heat exchanger” is the term that it uses in communications with its operators.

We agree. We changed references in this AD from “main heat exchanger” to “main fuel oil heat exchanger.”

Request To Revise Description of Incident and Unsafe Condition Statement

GE requested that we revise the discussion in the NPRM of the cause of the incident and the unsafe condition statement. GE indicated that this AD should say: “The incident investigation determined the cause to be the separation of a tube internal to the main fuel oil heat exchanger, which resulted in leakage of fuel into the oil system, causing fuel to flood the oil sump that overwhelmed the scavenge and venting system. This condition (engine with main fuel oil heat exchanger that has not been repaired), if not corrected, could result in failure of a main fuel oil heat exchanger, which could result in an engine fire.”

We disagree. The description of the incident in the NPRM is not repeated in this final rule AD. The description of the unsafe condition in this AD is accurate. These changes, therefore, are unnecessary. We did not change this AD.

Support for the NPRM

Federal Express and the Air Line Pilots Association expressed support for the NPRM as written. The Boeing Company and United Airlines indicated that they have no objections to the content of this NPRM.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016, and GE SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 02, dated August 5, 2016. These service bulletins describe procedures to repair and replace a main fuel oil heat exchanger. These documents are distinct since they apply to different engine models. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 185 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replace main fuel oil heat exchanger 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $7,000 $7,425 $1,373,625
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-08-06 General Electric Company: Amendment 39-18855; Docket No. FAA-2016-9167; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-20-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to General Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, GE90-85B, GE90-90B, GE90-94B, GE90-110B1, and GE90-115B turbofan engines with a fuel/oil lube/servo cooler (“main fuel oil heat exchanger”), part number (P/N) 1838M88P11 (VIN UA541461-12) or 1838M88P13 (VIN UA541461-14), with a serial number (S/N) listed in paragraph 1.A of GE Service Bulletin (SB) GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 05, 2016; or GE SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 02, dated August 05, 2016.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7921, Engine Oil Cooler.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an engine and airplane fire. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of a main fuel oil heat exchanger, which could result in an engine fire.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Required Actions

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the main fuel oil heat exchanger with a part eligible for installation.

    (h) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, a part eligible for installation is a main fuel oil heat exchanger:

    (1) That has been repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(2) through 3.C.(7), of GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016; or GE SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 02, dated August 05, 2016; or

    (2) with an S/N not listed in paragraph 1.A. of GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 05, 2016; or SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 02, dated August 05, 2016.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the replacement that is required by paragraph (g) of this AD if you performed the replacement before the effective date of this AD using a main fuel oil heat exchanger repaired in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.C.(2) through 3.C.(7), of GE SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 02, dated November 6, 2015, or earlier versions; or GE SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 01, dated December 10, 2015, or earlier versions.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7756; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) General Electric Company (GE) SB GE90-100 S/B 79-0034, Revision 03, dated August 5, 2016.

    (ii) GE SB GE90 S/B 79-0058, Revision 02, dated August 05, 2016.

    (3) For GE service information identified in this AD, contact General Electric Company, GE-Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way, Cincinnati, OH 45215, phone: 513-552-3272; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 5, 2017. Carlos A. Pestana, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07677 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9505; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-155-AD; Amendment 39-18856; AD 2017-08-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Learjet, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to multi-site damage (MSD). This AD requires a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 22, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone: 316-946-2000; fax: 316-946-2220; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9505.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9505; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4152; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92745) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to MSD. The NPRM proposed to require a one-time inspection of the fuselage skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to that comment.

    Request To Require Repetitive Inspections

    An anonymous commenter stated that given the cause is unknown, a one-time inspection is insufficient to protect against corrosion. The commenter stated that we should require more frequent inspections.

    We partially agree with the commenter. We understand the concern that repetitive inspections might be necessary to reduce the damage caused by corrosion. However, the required inspection is considered to be interim action, and in order to establish meaningful inspection intervals without causing excessive expense to operators, this AD requires owners/operators to report the extent of corrosion on their airplanes along with the total time (i.e., flight hours) and total number of landings on the airplanes. Using this information, the FAA will be able to gain a better understanding of the damage to the fleet. This will allow us to determine if additional corrective action is needed and what the appropriate action should be. It also will provide justification as to whether or not further rulemaking is needed. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the fuselage crown skin for corrosion, and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. Because the cause of the corrosion is not known, the inspection reports will help determine the extent of the corrosion in the affected fleet. Based on the results of these reports, we might determine that further corrective action is warranted. Once further corrective action has been identified, we might consider further rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 284 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspections 46 work-hours × $85 per hour = $3,910 $265 $4,175 $1,185,700 Reporting 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 24,140

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-08-07 Learjet, Inc.: Amendment 39-18856; Docket No. FAA-2016-9505; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-155-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 22, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Learjet, Inc., Model 60 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 60-002 through 60-430 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the upper fuselage skin under the aft oxygen line fairing is subject to multi-site damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct corrosion of the fuselage skin, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of the Fuselage Skin, and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD: Do a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection of the fuselage skin between stringers (S)-2L and S-2R for corrosion; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

    (1) For airplanes with more than 12 years since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes with more than 6 years but equal to or less than 12 years since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) For airplanes with 6 years or less since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.

    (h) Service Information Exception

    Where Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016, specifies contacting Learjet, Inc., for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (i) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (both positive and negative) of the inspection required by the introductory text of paragraph (g) of this AD to: [email protected]; or Ann Johnson, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Wichita, KS 67209. The report must include the name of the owner, the address of the owner, the name of the organization incorporating Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, the date that inspection was completed, the name of the person submitting the report, the address, telephone number, and email of the person submitting the report, the airplane serial number, the total time (flight hours) on the airplane, the total number of landings on the airplane, whether corrosion was detected, whether corrosion was repaired, the structural repair manual (SRM) chapter and revision used (if repaired), and whether corrosion exceeded the minimum thickness specified in Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19 (and specify the SRM chapter and revision, if used as an aid to determine minimum thickness).

    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.

    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in the introductory text to paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, dated November 23, 2015; Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 1, dated April 4, 2016; or Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 2, dated April 18, 2016.

    (k) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 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 unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

    (l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Wichita ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by a Learjet, Inc., Designated Engineering Representative (DER), or a Unit Member (UM) of the Learjet Organization Designation Authorization (ODA), that has been authorized by the Manager, Wichita ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Paul Chapman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-118W, FAA, Wichita ACO, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Dwight D. Eisenhower Airport, Wichita, KS 67209; phone: 316-946-4152; fax: 316-946-4107; email: [email protected]

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(3) and (n)(4) of this AD.

    (n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Learjet 60 Service Bulletin 60-53-19, Revision 3, dated August 29, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For Learjet, Inc., service information identified in this AD, contact Learjet, Inc., One Learjet Way, Wichita, KS 67209-2942; telephone: 316-946-2000; fax: 316-946-2220; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 7, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07551 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0179] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Upper Mississippi River, Rock Island, IL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois. The deviation is necessary to allow the Quad City Heart Walk to cross the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position for two and one half hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. on May 20, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0179] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers, Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2378, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Army Rock Island Arsenal requested a temporary deviation for the Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge, across the Upper Mississippi River, mile 482.9, at Rock Island, Illinois to remain in the closed-to-navigation position for a two and 1/2 hour period from 8:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., May 20, 2017, while the Quad Cities Heart Walk is held between the cities of Davenport, IA and Rock Island, IL.

    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge currently operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, which states the general requirement that drawbridges shall open promptly and fully for the passage of vessels when a request to open is given in accordance with the subpart.

    There are no alternate routes for vessels transiting this section of the Upper Mississippi River.

    The Rock Island Railroad and Highway Drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 23.8 feet above normal pool in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of commercial tows and recreational watercraft. This temporary deviation has been coordinated with waterway users. No objections were received.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 31, 2017. Eric A. Washburn, Bridge Administrator, Western Rivers.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07721 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0229] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mill River, New Haven, CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Chapel Street Bridge across the Mill River, mile 0.4 at New Haven, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary to complete mortar and fender repairs as well as structural steel work. This deviation allows the bridge to open for the passage of vessels upon 2 hours of advance notice.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from April 17, 2017 through 11:59 p.m. on May 5, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on April 3, 2017, until April 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0229 is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email James M. Moore, Bridge Management Specialist, First District Bridge Branch, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 212-514-4334, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The City of New Haven, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to facilitate rehabilitation of the bridge. The Chapel Street Bridge, across the Mill River, mile 0.4 at New Haven, Connecticut offers mariners a vertical clearance of 7.88 feet at mean high water and 13.99 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.213(d). The bridge routinely opens for commercial vessels, but mariners have indicated the requirement for 2 hours of advance notice will not impede routine waterway operations.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Chapel Street Bridge will open for the passage of vessels requiring an opening provided 2 hours of advance notice is furnished to the owner of the bridge; except that, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. to 5:45 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic.

    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies. There is no alternate route for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07668 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-8469] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 13, 2017, FEMA published in the Federal Register a suspension of community eligibility final rule that contained an erroneous table. This final rule provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published at 82 FR 13399. The table provided here represents the communities that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    Correction

    In the suspension of community eligibility final rule published at 82 FR 13399 in the March 13, 2017 issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table titled Suspension of Community Eligibility Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8469. This table contained inaccurate information as to the date the communities were to be suspended featured in the table. The Cities of Lakewood and Ruston, Pierce County, Washington, remain eligible for suspension. The other communities listed in the incorrect table came into compliance and thus were not suspended. 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.

    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    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 rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows: PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 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.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/
  • cancellation of sale of
  • flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal assistance no longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region X Washington: Lakewood, City of, Pierce County 530333 N/A, Emerg; November 28, 1997, Reg; March 7, 2017, Susp. March 7, 2017 March 7, 2017. Ruston, City of, Pierce County 530300 N/A, Emerg; December 3, 2008, Reg; March 7, 2017, Susp. ......do   Do. *-do- = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: April 10, 2017. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07612 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    82 72 Monday, April 17, 2017 Proposed Rules FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 43 and 63 [IB Docket Nos. 17-55 and 16-131, FCC 17-28] Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Services; 2016 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on the federal need for the international services reporting requirements set forth in the Commission's rules. Those reporting requirements are the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports and the Circuit Capacity Reports. The Commission believes these reports are no longer necessary in their current form. The Commission proposes to eliminate the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports altogether, and seeks comment on whether there are ways to further streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before May 17, 2017, and replies on or before June 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket Nos. 16-131 and 17-55, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's ECFS Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email to [email protected], phone: 202-418-0530 (voice), tty: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Krech or Arthur Lechtman, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1480 or via email to [email protected] or [email protected] On PRA matters, contact Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, FCC, (202) 418-2918 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket Nos. 16-131 and 17-55, adopted on March 23, 2017 and released on March 23, 2017. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission seeks comment on the federal need for the international services reporting requirements set forth in Section 43.62 of the Commission's rules. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document also is available for download over the Internet at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/section-4362-nprm.

    Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's ECFS Web site at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    Synopsis

    1. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the federal need for the international services reporting requirements set forth in section 43.62 of the Commission's rules. See Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services; Amendment of part 43 of the Commission's Rules, IB Docket No. 04-112, Second Report and Order, 78 FR 15615 (2013). Those reporting requirements fall into two categories. First, the Traffic and Revenue Reports require providers of international telecommunications services to report annually their traffic and revenue for international voice services, international miscellaneous services, and international common carrier private lines. Second, the Circuit Capacity Reports require providers of international telecommunications services to file annual reports identifying the submarine cable, satellite, and terrestrial capacity between the United States and foreign points. The Commission believes these reports are no longer necessary in their current form. The Commission proposes to eliminate the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports altogether, and seeks comment on whether there are ways to further streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports.

    2. Traffic and Revenue Reports. Currently, any person or entity that holds an international section 214 authorization to provide International Telecommunications Services (ITS) and/or any person or entity that is engaged in the provision of Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Services Connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) between the United States and any foreign point (together, Filing Entities) must file an annual Traffic and Revenue Report. ITS refers to telecommunications service between the United States and a foreign point. Interconnected VoIP Service Connected to the PSTN refers to service between the United States and any foreign point that: (1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires Internet Protocol-compatible customer premise equipment; and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that originate on the PSTN or to terminate calls to the PSTN. Filing Manual for section 43.62 Annual Reports (IB Feb. 2016) (section 43.62 Filing Manual). The information submitted for this annual report covers: (1) International Calling Service (ICS); (2) International Private Line Service; and (3) International Miscellaneous Services. ICS is defined as international message telephone service (IMTS) and Interconnected VoIP Connected to the PSTN, including International Call Completion Service for IMTS or Interconnected VoIP Connected to the PSTN. IMTS consists of telecommunications services (including voice and low-speed dial-up data) provided over the public switched networks of U.S. international carriers. International Private Line Service is defined as Private Line Service between the United States and a foreign point. Private Line Service refers to making available to a customer on a common carrier basis a circuit for a specified period of time for the customer's exclusive use. International Miscellaneous Service refers to any international telecommunications service other than ICS and International Private Line Service. Section 43.62 Filing Manual. Each person or entity that holds an international section 214 authorization, whether or not it provided any ITS during the preceding calendar year, must file at least a registration form and services checklist indicating whether it provided international service the previous year. Filing Entities that only had $5 million or less in ICS resale revenues need only file the registration form and services checklist. Filing Entities report information on International Miscellaneous Services for which they had $5 million or more in revenue.

    3. Historically, the primary role of the international Traffic and Revenue Reports was to monitor settlement rates. The reports were important in the development and enforcement of the Commission's benchmark policy, requiring international settlement rates on particular routes to fall below competitive benchmarks. International Settlement Rates, IB Docket No. 96-261, Report and Order, 62 FR 45758 (1997) (Benchmarks Order). As the international telecommunications sector has liberalized and competition has grown, the Commission has determined that most routes were competitive based, in large part, on the Traffic and Revenue Reports; data from these reports thus allowed the Commission to end its International Settlements Policy. See International Settlements Policy Reform et al., IB Docket Nos. 11-80, et al., Report and Order, 78 FR 11109 (2013); International Settlements Policy Reform; International Settlement Rates, IB Docket Nos. 02-324, 96-261, First Report and Order, 69 FR 23151 (2004).

    4. Circuit Capacity Reports. The Circuit Capacity Reports help the Commission understand the U.S.-international transport markets. The Commission receives two types of data regarding submarine cables: (1) Submarine cable operators report the available and planned capacity of their submarine cable systems and (2) common carriers and submarine cable licensees report the capacity that they own or lease on a submarine cable. Submarine cable landing licensees are required to file available and planned capacity information for each cable system as of December 31 of the reporting period. Any U.S. international common carrier or cable landing licensee that owned or leased capacity on a submarine cable between the United States and any foreign point on December 31 of the reporting period is required to file capacity amounts for the following categories: (1) Owned capacity; (2) net indefeasible rights-of-use (IRUs); (3) net inter-carrier leaseholds (ICLs); (4) net capacity held (i.e., the total of categories (1) through (3)); (5) activated capacity; and (6) non-activated capacity. Section 43.62 Filing Manual. The Commission also receives world total circuit data for terrestrial and satellite facilities. Each facilities-based common carrier is required to file a report showing its active common carrier terrestrial or satellite circuits between the United States and any foreign point as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year. The terrestrial and satellite circuits are reported in world-total counts of 64 kilobits per second (kbps) circuit units. In addition, non-common carrier satellite operators are required to report a world-total count of circuits used by themselves or their affiliates, or sold or leased to any customer as of December 31 of the reporting period, other than to an international common carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services.

    5. The Circuit Capacity Reports show the level of facilities-based competition for the major U.S.-international routes, and can help policy-makers and industry determine whether there is and will be sufficient capacity to handle demand for telecommunications on a specific U.S.-international route. The Commission has used the data in analyzing proposed transactions in the U.S.-international services markets, particularly with respect to whether a transaction would affect facilities-based competition on any particular U.S.-international route(s). The data are used to determine whether entry by foreign companies will benefit or adversely affect competition.

    6. The Commission also uses the data for national security and public safety purposes, to ensure that U.S. international telecommunications are safe from disruption, and to provide information about key routes and whether there are alternative cables or satellite facilities available to provide communications to specific locations. The data provide information on ownership and control of submarine cable capacity, to help national security agencies assess the safety and integrity of U.S.-international telecommunications infrastructure. The Commission also uses the terrestrial, satellite, and submarine cable capacity data to administer the annual regulatory fees established in section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). 47 U.S.C. 159.

    7. Biennial Review. On November 3, 2016, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on the 2016 biennial review of our telecommunications regulations pursuant to section 11 of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 161; 31 FCC Rcd 12166 (2016). Several parties recommend that we further streamline or eliminate the reporting requirements in section 43.62 of the Commission's rules, and no party wrote in support of retaining these requirements.

    8. DISCUSSION. After reviewing the record in this biennial review proceeding, and based on our own understanding of the competitive nature of the international services sector, we believe that the international traffic and revenue data collection is no longer necessary, and we propose to eliminate this reporting requirement. We instead believe that more targeted collections, in response to actual U.S. carrier complaints, may provide the Commission with all the information it needs.

    9. In contrast, we believe that it might serve the public interest to retain the Circuit Capacity Reports. We thus explore whether, instead of eliminating these reports, there are ways we could streamline or modify this data collection while continuing to meet our statutory obligations.

    10. Traffic and Revenue Reports. We propose to eliminate the current international Traffic and Revenue Reports requirement. We believe that the costs of this data collection—which are significant both for filers and for the Commission—now exceed the benefits of the information. We seek comment on what effect elimination of this reporting requirement will have on U.S. consumers and U.S. carriers, and whether there may be less burdensome ways for the Commission to obtain data in order to fulfill its statutory obligations and protect U.S. interests.

    11. The international traffic and revenue reporting requirement appears to place a significant burden on the filing entities and the Commission. Although the Commission does not have firm numbers on the costs to industry to prepare and submit the reports, we have developed estimates of the burdens. These estimates have been derived by applying the number of traffic and revenue filings in 2016 to the burden estimates in the Paperwork Reduction Act review process for the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports and Circuit Capacity Reports. In 2016, 1,888 entities filed information regarding their 2015 international traffic and revenue. Of those, 1,822 filed only a registration form and did not file any data because they either did not have any international revenues in 2015, or only had less than $5 million in ICS resale revenue. Sixty-six filed data for ICS facilities-based services, International Private Line Services and/or International Miscellaneous Services, and 47 of the 66 filed revisions. In 2014, the Commission estimated that filers spend one hour preparing and filing the registration form; two hours preparing and filing world total ICS resale data; 150 hours preparing and submitting route-by-route data for facilities-based ICS and or international private lines; and 50 hours preparing and filing revised data. In total, we estimate that industry spent 14,770 hours preparing and submitting the data for the 2015 annual Traffic and Revenue Reports. We estimate that Commission staff will spend 2,218 hours reviewing and publishing the data at a total cost of at least $112,076. We seek comment on these estimates and ask commenters to provide us with the cost of preparing and submitting the Traffic and Revenue Reports. In particular, we seek comment on the actual time spent to produce the data and ask commenters to provide us with an average wage rate. AT&T Services Inc., for example, reported that nearly 300 hours were required to prepare its Traffic and Revenue Report. We also seek comment on the complexity involved in providing data to the Commission. Do commenters have the information required for filing readily available from their internal systems? Do commenters need to maintain redundant systems or perform complex analysis on their internal data in order to submit their reports? What impact, if any, does the complexity of analysis required have on the reliability of the data submitted?

    12. Given the increasing level of competition on most U.S-international routes, we believe that the benefits of the Traffic and Revenue Reports have so diminished that they no longer outweigh the costs. In the last 20 years, since the implementation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom Agreement and the establishment of the Commission's benchmarks settlements policy, the international telecommunications sector has become much more competitive on both the U.S. and foreign ends, as government regulations in the United States and abroad were relaxed, and enabled entry. As a result, both U.S.-international average settlement rates and average IMTS revenue per minute have dropped dramatically. IMTS is defined as the provision of message telephone service (MTS) between the United States and a foreign point. The term MTS refers to the transmission and reception of speech and low-speed dial-up data over the PSTN. Section 43.62 Filing Manual. Average settlement rates paid out by U.S. carriers have decreased from $0.18 per minute in 2000 to $0.03 per minute in 2014, an 83 percent drop. Average facilities ICS revenue per minute, which is a general measure of international calling prices, has decreased from $0.47 per minute in 2000 to $0.04 per minute in 2014, indicating a drop of 85 percent in the price to consumers for international calling.

    13. Additionally, the data we collect may actually understate the competitiveness of the international market. Although we collect data from interconnected VoIP providers (354 interconnected VoIP providers filed Traffic and Revenue Reports in 2015), we do not mandate reporting from non-interconnected VoIP providers, many of whose services are free to the customer. This indicates that overall consumer rates for international voice traffic may be below those indicated by the reports. As use of those services continues to increase, it calls into question the continuing value of the overall traffic and revenue data, since such data reveal only a fraction of the overall picture of international communications, a fraction that is likely to grow smaller over time. To the extent information is available, we seek comment on what portion of international telecommunications services is provided by non-interconnected VoIP services, the projected future growth of those services, and their impact on the relevance and accuracy of our current Traffic and Revenue Reports.

    14. Settlement rates to most foreign points are also well below the benchmark rate established for that country, indicating that competition has driven the rate closer to cost-based levels. Though some routes are still subject to the anti-competitive effects of foreign monopolist providers and government regulation, for the most part U.S.-international routes are competitive. In a recent presentation to the Expert Group on International Telecommunication Regulations, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United States noted that “[a]ccording to the ITU, a clear majority of countries in all six ITU regions have competitive markets covering elements that are essential to the provision of international telecommunication services—domestic fixed long-distance, mobile, leased lines, and international gateways. For example, according to ITU's 2015 ICTEYE, a majority of countries have various levels of competitive markets in domestic and international long distance services and more than 75 percent of ITU Member States have competitive international gateways and leased line markets.” This is due to relaxed government regulations, entry by new carriers, entry by existing incumbents into other countries' markets, technological developments that have enhanced ease of entry, and, perhaps most significantly for the future, the development of VoIP-based alternatives to traditional international switched services, such as Skype, FaceTime, Viber, or WhatsApp. Attempts to raise settlement rates by a foreign carrier, cartel, or government can be countered by carriers using our benchmark complaint process, or by consumers switching to VoIP-based calling services, many of which are free. Although the traffic and revenue data have been useful for those times when we have investigated anticompetitive behavior on certain routes, these have been relatively infrequent in recent years, for example, on the U.S.-Fiji route (2013 to present), U.S.-Pakistan route (2013-2016), and U.S.-Tonga route (2009 to present). Moreover, we can and do request traffic and revenue information from carriers when a carrier complains of anticompetitive conduct by a foreign carrier or government on a specific route. The Commission has broad authority to investigate possible anti-competitive activities on U.S.-international routes.

    15. In eliminating the Traffic and Revenue Reports, is there data and information that the Commission would not be able to obtain to address instances of anticompetitive conduct on a U.S.-international route that adversely affects U.S. consumers or U.S. carriers? How could the Commission ascertain which facilities-based carriers have termination arrangements on a particular U.S.-international route in the absence of reported traffic and revenue data? We seek comment on whether there are less burdensome alternatives for carriers to provide the Commission with information it needs to protect U.S. consumers and carriers. There are also international routes which are not fully competitive and on which the settlement rate is still above the benchmark rate. For example, according to 2014 data on calling to foreign fixed-line networks, there are 48 above-benchmark routes that constitute approximately 1 percent of total fixed minutes and 21 percent of total fixed U.S. settlement payouts worldwide. We seek comment on whether the Commission should continue to obtain information regarding above-benchmark rates. If so, what information should the Commission continue to require? In addition, for those commenters opposed to eliminating these reporting requirements, we seek comment on how they can be further streamlined and whether the Commission should sunset some or all of the provisions. For instance, requiring only route-by-route data from facilities-based carriers and eliminating the filing requirement for resale, private line, and miscellaneous services would greatly reduce the overall industry burden and would exempt over 1,800 entities from filing Traffic and Revenue Reports. We seek comment on all the issues raised and solicit additional feedback on any issues we should consider with regard to eliminating the Traffic and Revenue Reports.

    16. Circuit Capacity Reports. At this time, we believe that retaining the Circuit Capacity Reports might be warranted because the benefits appear to exceed the costs of collecting this data. We seek comment on our analysis and on ways to further streamline our requirements to minimize the burden on filers while ensuring the Commission receives the information it needs to meet its statutory responsibilities. We propose to delete section 43.62 of the Commission's rules, which contains both annual Traffic and Revenue Reports and the Circuit Capacity Reports, and place the Circuit Capacity Reports in section 43.82 of the Commission's rules.

    17. We seek comment on the burden imposed by our circuit capacity reporting requirements. While the Commission does not have firm numbers on the costs to industry to prepare and submit the reports, we have developed estimates of the burdens. These estimates have been derived by applying the number of circuit capacity filings in 2016 to the burden estimates in the Paperwork Reduction Act review process for the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports and Circuit Capacity Reports. In 2016, 91 entities filed data regarding their circuits as of December 31, 2015. Thirty-five reports were filed for terrestrial and satellite world total circuits; 30 cable operator reports were filed; and 72 capacity holder reports were filed. In 2014, the Commission estimated that filers spend one hour preparing and filing the registration form; one hour preparing and filing world total terrestrial and/or satellite circuits; two hours preparing and submitting the cable operators report; and 10 hours preparing and filing the cable capacity holders report. In total, we estimate that industry spent 906 hours preparing and submitting the data for the 2015 annual Circuit Capacity Reports. We estimate that Commission staff will spend 372 hours reviewing and publishing the data at a total cost of $22,280. We seek comment on these estimations and ask commenters to provide us with the cost of preparing and submitting the Circuit Capacity Reports. In particular, we seek comment on the actual time spent to produce the data and ask commenters to provide us with an average wage rate.

    18. Although the value of the Circuit Capacity Reports is less than it once was with the advent of competition throughout the international marketplace, we believe the reports still retain significant value. For one, the Circuit Capacity Reports give the agency a clear understanding of which operators have deployed what facilities where—the prime information needed for any analysis of facilities-based competition. For another, the Circuit Capacity Reports are used by the Commission and the national security agencies to understand how to protect and secure this critical international infrastructure. For yet another, the Commission relies on these reports to carry out its statutory obligation to assess regulatory fees on international bearer circuits. We believe that these benefits outweigh the costs of this information collection. We seek comment on this analysis, and how the benefits of the Circuit Capacity Reports can best be quantified.

    19. We also seek comment on ways to streamline or improve our reporting requirements. Have there have been changes in the international transport markets over the past few years that necessitate a reexamination of the type of information we collect, especially any changes in the submarine cable markets? How should we modify the collection in a manner that would still allow the Commission to meet its obligations? How would the cost benefit analysis change with the proposed modifications? Should we collect different information that would minimize burdens on filers while still providing value to the public, industry, and the Commission? We recognize that the data are used to assess regulatory fees, and seek comment on whether we should require filers to submit, for example, the data at the same time as the fee, rather than as a prelude to the fee. What other ways can the Commission minimize burdens on filers? What, if any, alternative or substitutes for the circuit capacity data, in particular the submarine cable data, are available from commercial sources? If data are available from commercial sources, are there limitations on the Commission's use of that data? We seek comment on this and whether there are alternative lower cost means of acquiring circuit capacity data. We also seek comment on whether we could eliminate the Circuit Capacity Reports, and if so how the Commission could continue to perform the functions that the circuit data enable.

    20. We also seek input on two issues that have become apparent with the most recent filing of Circuit Capacity Reports. First, for certain individual cables, we have observed a discrepancy between the capacity reported on the cable operators report and the capacity reported on the cable capacity holders report. For example, occasionally, we find that the cable capacity holders report has higher capacity numbers than the cable operator report for the same cable. In those instances, Commission staff will contact the filers concerning the inconsistencies. What is the cause of such inconsistencies, and how can we best address them?

    21. Second, on the cable capacity holders report, filers are asked to report capacity acquired and relinquished via indefeasible rights-of-use (IRUs) or inter-carrier leaseholds (ICLs) only in those cases where such transactions are with another reporting entity. Thus, for each entry of capacity acquired by IRU or ICL, there should be a corresponding entry of capacity relinquished; however, this has generally not been the case. Should we address this by clarifying the filing instructions? Or should we change the instructions so that all IRU and ICL transactions must be reported, regardless of whether the other party is also a reporting party?

    22. As part of the changes adopted in 2013, filers are allowed to check a box on the registration form to request confidentiality for their data. In the past, the Commission has published information on the current and planned capacity of individual U.S.-international submarine cables. Several cable operators have recently requested confidential treatment for their cable operator data. To minimize burdens, we seek comment on whether, for example, in the future the Commission should publish such data on a consolidated regional (and not cable-specific) basis. We seek comment on whether releasing only regional data to the public, without identifying individual cable operators, will affect the usefulness of the Circuit Capacity Reports, and whether this practice would address concerns operators have regarding the confidentiality of data submitted in such reports. We note that the Commission would still have the information on a cable-by-cable basis.

    23. Finally, we propose a change to the confidentiality rule for circuit capacity to clarify that requests for confidential treatment will be consistent with Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules, and seek comment on this proposal.

    24. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    25. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due June 16, 2017. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

    26. Statement of Authority. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 11, 201-205, 214, 219-220, 303(r), 309, and 403 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 161, 201-205, 214, 219-220, 303(r), 309, and 403, and the Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39, and 3 U.S.C. 301.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    27. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the comments by the deadlines provided in this NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    28. The Commission initiated this NPRM to assess the federal need for the international reporting requirements set forth in section 43.62 of the Commission's rules. On November 3, 2016, the Commission released a Public Notice seeking comment on the 2016 biennial review of our telecommunications regulations pursuant to section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act). Section 11 requires the Commission to (1) review biennially its regulations “that apply to the operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service,” and (2) “determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary in the public interest as the result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service.” Section 11 directs the Commission to repeal or modify any regulation that it finds are no longer in the public interest. While the Commission streamlined and modernized the Part 43 international reporting requirements in 2013, several parties recommend that we further streamline or eliminate these rules.

    29. The objectives of this proceeding are to eliminate, further streamline, or modify the current traffic and revenue reporting requirements and further streamline or modify circuit capacity reporting requirements that apply to carriers providing international services pursuant to section 43.62 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the Commission proposes to eliminate the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports, and seeks comment on ways to further streamline the annual Circuit Capacity Reports. After reviewing the record in this biennial review proceeding, and based on our own understanding of the competitive nature of the international services sector, we believe that the international traffic and revenue data collection is no longer necessary, and we propose to eliminate this reporting requirement. We recognize that there may be occasions when we need international services market information, and seek comment on how to obtain this information in the most cost effective and least burdensome way. With respect to the annual Circuit Capacity Reports, we believe they may warrant retention, and do not propose their elimination. We do, however, explore whether there are ways we could further streamline or modify this data collection while meeting our statutory obligations.

    30. Currently, section 43.62(b) of the Commission's rules requires providers of international services to report annually their traffic and revenue for international voice services, international miscellaneous services, and international common carrier private lines. Section 43.62(a) of the Commission's rules requires providers of international services to report annually submarine cable, satellite, and terrestrial capacity between the United States and foreign points.

    31. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.” A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    32. The proposals in the NPRM apply to entities providing international common carrier services pursuant to section 214 of the Act; entities providing international wireless common carrier services under section 309 of the Act; entities providing common carrier satellite services under section 309 of the Act; and entities licensed to construct and operate submarine cables under the Cable Landing License Act. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard directed specifically toward these entities. As described below, such entities fit within larger categories for which the SBA has developed size standards.

    33. The proposals in the NPRM apply to a mixture of both large and small entities. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard directed specifically toward these entities. However, as described below, these entities fit into larger categories for which the SBA has developed size standards that provide these facilities or services.

    1. Facilities-based Carriers.

    2. IMTS Resale Providers.

    3. Wireless Carriers and Service Providers.

    4. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).

    5. Wireless Communications Services.

    6. Providers of Interconnected VoIP services.

    7. Spot Market Operators.

    8. Providers of International Telecommunications Transmission Facilities.

    9. Satellite Telecommunications Providers.

    10. Operators of Non-Common Carrier Undersea Cable Systems.

    11. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.

    34. The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that would affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for entities providing international common carrier services pursuant to section 214 of the Communications Act; entities providing international wireless common carrier services under Section 309 of the Act; entities providing common carrier satellite services under section 309 of the Act; and entities licensed to construct and operate submarine cables under the Cable Landing License Act. The NPRM proposes to eliminate, further streamline, or modify the current international reporting requirements to reduce the burdens for both small and large carriers. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to eliminate the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports, and seeks comment on ways to further streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports. As a result, the proposals in the NPRM will be financially beneficial and not impose any significant economic burdens on small carriers.

    35. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

    36. In this NPRM, the proposed changes in the international reporting requirements would lessen the burden on carriers, including small entities. We propose to eliminate the annual Traffic and Revenue Reports, and seek comment on ways to further streamline the Circuit Capacity Reports. After reviewing the record in this biennial review proceeding, and based on our own understanding of the competitive nature of the international services sector, we believe that the international traffic and revenue data collection is no longer necessary, and we propose to eliminate this reporting requirement. We recognize that there may be occasions when we need international services market information, and seek comment on how to obtain this information in the most cost effective and least burdensome way. We are also considering alternatives that would provide the Commission with important information for fulfilling its statutory obligations but would reduce the burdens on small businesses. With respect to the annual Circuit Capacity Reports, we believe they may warrant retention, and do not propose their elimination. We do, however, explore whether there are ways we could further streamline or modify this data collection while meeting our statutory obligations.

    37. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.

    38. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

    List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 43

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.

    47 CFR Part 63

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone.

    Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 43 and 63 as follows:

    PART 43—REPORTS OF COMMUNICATION COMMON CARRIERS, PROVIDERS OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICES AND CERTAIN AFFILIATES 1. The authority citation for Part 43 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996; Pub. Law 104-104, sec. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220, as amended; Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34-39.

    § 43.62 [Removed and Reserved]
    2. Section 43.62 is removed and reserved. 3. Add § 43.82 to read as follows:
    § 43.82 Circuit Capacity Reports.

    (a) Not later than March 31 of each year:

    (1) Satellite and Terrestrial Circuits. Each facilities-based common carrier shall file a report showing its active common carrier circuits between the United States and any foreign point as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year in any terrestrial or satellite facility for the provision of service to an end user or resale carrier, which includes active circuits used by themselves or their affiliates. Each non-common carrier satellite licensee shall file a report showing its active circuits between the United States and any foreign point as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year sold or leased to any customer, including themselves or their affiliates, other than a carrier authorized by the Commission to provide U.S. international common carrier services.

    (2) International Submarine Cable Capacity. (i) The licensee(s) of a submarine cable between the United States and any foreign point shall file a report showing the capacity of the submarine cable as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year. The licensee(s) shall also file a report showing the planned capacity of the submarine cable (the intended capacity of the submarine cable two years from December 31 of the preceding calendar year). Only one cable landing licensee shall file the capacity data for each submarine cable. For cables with more than one licensee, the licensees shall determine which licensee will file the reports.

    (ii) Each cable landing licensee and common carrier shall file a report showing its capacity on submarine cables between the United States and any foreign point as of December 31 of the preceding calendar year.

    Note to Paragraph (a):

    United States is defined in Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 153.

    (b) A Registration Form, containing information about the filer, such as address, phone number, email address, etc., shall be filed with each report. The Registration Form shall include a certification enabling the filer to check a box to indicate that the filer requests that its circuit capacity data be treated as confidential consistent with Section 0.459(b) of the Commission's rules.

    (c) Filing Manual. Authority is delegated to the Chief, International Bureau to prepare instructions and reporting requirements for the filing of these reports prepared and published as a Filing Manual. The information required under this Section shall be furnished in conformance with the instructions and reporting requirements in the Filing Manual.

    PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 4. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.

    5. Amend § 63.10 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 63.10 Regulatory classification of U.S. international carriers.

    (c) * * *

    (2) File quarterly reports on traffic and revenue within 90 days from the end of each calendar quarter.

    6. Amend § 63.21 by removing and reserving paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 63.21 Conditions applicable to all international Section 214 authorizations.

    (d) Reserved.

    7. Amend § 63.22 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 63.22 Facilities-based international common carriers.

    (e) The carrier shall file annual international circuit capacity reports as required by § 43.82 of this chapter.

    [FR Doc. 2017-07547 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 383, 391, 392, 395 and 396 [Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0114] Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: Highly Automated Commercial Vehicles; Public Listening Session AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public listening session.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces that it will hold a public listening session on April 24, 2017, to solicit information on issues relating to the design, development, testing, and deployment of highly automated commercial vehicles (HACVs). The listening session will provide interested parties an opportunity to share their views and any data or analysis on this topic with Agency representatives. FMCSA will transcribe all comments and place the transcripts in the docket referenced above. FMCSA will webcast the entire proceeding.

    DATES:

    The listening session will be held on Monday, April 24, 2017, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., e.t. Comments will be accepted from in-person participants as well as comments submitted via the Internet. If all interested participants have had an opportunity to comment, the session may conclude early.

    Public Comments: Comments on this notice must be received on or before July 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public listening session will be held as part of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance Workshop at the Hyatt Regency Atlanta, 265 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 577-1234, in the Regency Ballroom. Participation in the listening session is free. FMCSA will post specific information on how to participate via the Internet on the FMCSA Web site at www.fmcsa.dot.gov in advance of the session.

    You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2017-0114 using any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, (202) 366-2551, [email protected], Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    If you need sign language interpretation or any other accessibility accommodation, please contact Ms. Watson by April 19, 2017, to allow us to arrange for such services. FMCSA cannot guarantee that interpreter services requested on short notice will be provided.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (FMCSA-2017-0114), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0114, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0114, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    I. Background

    Highly automated vehicles (HAVs) are those in which the vehicle can take full control of the driving tasks in at least some circumstances. HAVs hold enormous potential benefits for safety, mobility, and sustainability.

    In January 2014, SAE International (SAE) published Standard J3016, “Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems” in order to simplify communication and facilitate collaboration within technical and policy domains for automated driving. The Standard defines more than a dozen key terms, and provides full descriptions and examples for each of six levels of driving automation. The SAE definitions divide vehicles into levels based on “who does what, when.” Generally:

    • At SAE Level 0, the human driver does everything.

    • At SAE Level 1, an automated system on the vehicle can sometimes assist the human driver conduct some parts of the driving task.

    • At SAE Level 2, an automated system on the vehicle can actually conduct some parts of the driving task, while the human continues to monitor the driving environment and performs the rest of the driving task.

    • At SAE Level 3, an automated system can both actually conduct some parts of the driving task and monitor the driving environment in some instances, but the human driver must be ready to take back control when the automated system requests.

    • At SAE Level 4, an automated system can conduct the driving task and monitor the driving environment, and the human need not take back control, but the automated system can operate only in certain environments and under certain conditions.

    • At SAE Level 5, the automated system can perform all driving tasks, under all conditions that a human driver could perform them.

    Using the SAE levels described above, there is a distinction between Levels 0-2 and 3-5 based on whether the human operator or the automated system is primarily responsible for monitoring the driving environment. The term “highly automated vehicle” represents SAE Levels 3-5 vehicles, with automated systems that are responsible for monitoring the driving environment.

    Public discussions regarding HACVs have become much more prominent in recent months as developers continue efforts to demonstrate and test the viability of advanced driver assistance systems on large commercial vehicles. FMCSA encourages the development of these advanced safety technologies for use on commercial vehicles, and at the same time, recognizes the need to ensure that testing and operation of these advanced safety systems is conducted in a manner that ensures the highest level of safety for everyone involved—and most importantly, for the motoring public.

    Sections 390.17 and 393.3 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR parts 350-399) permit the use of additional equipment and accessories on CMVs beyond those which are minimally required by the regulations, provided that such equipment and accessories do not decrease the safety of operation of the CMVs on which they are used. While advanced driver assistance systems such as automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, forward collision warning, and others are not currently required to be used on CMVs, the use of such systems is permitted provided they do not impair the effectiveness of the required safety systems.

    II. Meeting Participation and Information the Agency Seeks From the Public

    The listening session is open to the public. Speakers should try to limit their remarks to 3-5 minutes, and no preregistration is required. Attendees may submit material to FMCSA staff at the session to include in the public docket referenced in this notice. Those participating in the webcast will have the opportunity to submit comments online that will be read aloud at the session with comments made in the meeting room. FMCSA will docket the transcript of the webcast, a separate transcription of the listening session prepared by an official court reporter, and all other materials submitted to Agency personnel.

    In anticipation of the continued development of HACVs, FMCSA seeks information on issues that need to be addressed to ensure that the Federal safety regulations provide appropriate standards for the safe operation of HACVs from design and development through testing and deployment. Specifically, FMCSA welcomes comments and information on the application of the following regulatory provisions in title 49 CFR to HACVs: Part 383 (Commercial Driver's Licenses); part 391 (Qualifications of Drivers); sections 392.80 and 392.82 (use of electronic devices); part 395 (Hours of Service of Drivers); and part 396 (Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance). The FMCSA also requests public comments on how enforcement officials could identify CMVs capable of various levels of automated operation and the types of HACV equipment that can be effectively inspected at roadside. The Agency welcomes the opportunity to work with all interested parties to identify actions that may be necessary to address regulatory barriers while ensuring the safe operation of HACVs.

    Issued on: April 12, 2017. Daphne Y. Jefferson, Deputy Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07723 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration 49 CFR Chapter VI [Docket No. FTA-2013-0030] RIN 2132-AB20 The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    This action withdraws an FTA advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), The National Public Transportation Safety Plan, the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, and the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program; Transit Asset Management. FTA has issued separate notices of proposed rulemakings for the several rules included in the ANPRM, under different RIN numbers. Accordingly, FTA is not using RIN 2132-AB20 for any of the notices of proposed rulemakings and therefore the ANPRM is withdrawn.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61251) is withdrawn as of April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chaya Koffman, Assistant Chief Counsel, Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Chief Counsel, phone: (202) 366-3101, fax: (202) 366-3809, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141. MAP-21 made a number of fundamental changes to the statutes that authorize the Federal transit programs at 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53. Under discussion in the October 3, 2013 ANPRM were several provisions within the Public Transportation Safety Program (National Safety Program) authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5329 and the transit asset management requirements (National TAM System) authorized at 49 U.S.C. 5326.

    FTA has published several notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRMs) and final rules for the Public Transportation Safety Program: Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan NPRM (RIN 2132-AB23); Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program NPRM (RIN 2132-AB25); State Safety Oversight final rule (RIN 2132-AB19); Public Transportation Safety Program final rule (RIN 2132-AB22); and a proposed National Safety Plan (RIN 2132-ZA04). Further, FTA published a final rule for Transit Asset Management (RIN 2132-AB07). Each of these rulemakings has been assigned a distinct RIN, and RIN 2132-AB20 is not being used for any of the rules.

    The Withdrawal In consideration of the foregoing, the ANPRM for FTA Docket No. FTA-2013-0030, as published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2013 (78 FR 61251), is hereby withdrawn. Matthew Welbes, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07673 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-57-P
    82 72 Monday, April 17, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request April 12, 2017.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by May 17, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

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

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Operating Guidelines, Forms and Waivers.

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0083.

    Summary of Collection: Under Section 16 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act), 7 U.S.C. 2025, the Secretary is authorized to pay each State agency an amount equal to 50 percent of all administrative costs involved in each State agency's operation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Under corresponding SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 272.2(c), the State agency is required to submit and maintain annually for FNS approval a Budget Projection Statement (FNS-366A), which projects total costs for major areas of SNAP operations, and a Program Activity Statement (FNS-366B), which provides a summary of SNAP operations during the preceding fiscal year. Additionally, Under Section 11(o) of the Act each State agency is required to develop and submit plans for the use of automated data processing (ADP) and information retrieval systems to administer SNAP. As for State Plan of Operation Updates, State agencies will submit the operations planning documents to the appropriate regional office for approval through the SNAP Workflow & Information Management (SWIM) database.

    Need and Use of the Information: FNS will collect information to estimate funding needs and also provide data on the number of applications processed, number of fair hearings, and fraud control activity. FNS uses the data to estimate funding needs and to monitor State agency activity levels and performance. If the information were not collected it would disrupt budget planning and delay appropriation distributions and FNS would not be able to verify and ensure State compliance with statutory criteria.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 53.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,089.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07649 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Notice of Intent To Certify South Carolina Department of Agriculture (South Carolina); Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by this Delegated State: South Carolina Department of Agriculture (South Carolina).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415, [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every five years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79(e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.

    Area of Delegation South Carolina

    Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of South Carolina are assigned to this State agency.

    In South Carolina

    All export port locations in the State of South Carolina, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of South Carolina. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07700 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Opportunity for Designation in the Montana Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on June 30, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Montana Department of Agriculture (Montana).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation State of Montana

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Montana is assigned to this official agency.

    In Montana

    The entire State of Montana.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Montana is for the period beginning July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Jacob Thein at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Montana official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07701 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Notice of Intent To Certify Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (Alabama); Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by this Delegated State: Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries (Alabama).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Jacob Thein, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Jacob Thein, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Thein, 816-866-2223, [email protected] or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(e)(2)(A) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) designates that if the Secretary determines, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Section 79(e), that a State agency is qualified to perform official inspection, meets the criteria in subsection (f)(1)(A) of Section 79, and (i) was performing official inspection at an export port location under this chapter on July 1, 1976, or (ii)(I) performed official inspection at an export port location at any time prior to July 1, 1976, (II) was designated under subsection (f) of Section 79 on December 22, 1982, to perform official inspections at locations other than export port locations, and (III) operates in a State from which total annual exports do not exceed, as determined by the Secretary, five per centum of the total amount of grain exported from the United States annually, the Secretary may delegate authority to the State agency to perform all or specified functions involving official inspection (other than appeal inspection) at export port locations within the State, including export port locations which may in the future be established, subject to such rules, regulations, instructions, and oversight as the Secretary may prescribe, and any such official inspection shall continue to be the direct responsibility of the Secretary. Any such delegation may be revoked by the Secretary, at the discretion of the Secretary, at any time upon notice to the State agency without opportunity for a hearing. Under Section 79(e) of the USGSA, every five years, the Secretary shall certify that each State agency with a delegation of authority is meeting the criteria described in subsection (f)(1)(A). Delegations shall be renewed according to the criteria and procedures set forth in Section 79 (e)(2)(B) of the USGSA.

    Area of Delegation Alabama

    Pursuant to Section 79(e)(2) of the USGSA, the following export port locations in the State of Alabama are assigned to this State agency.

    In Alabama

    All export port locations in the State of Alabama, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the State of Alabama. We are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the delegation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Jacob Thein at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider comments and other available information when determining certification.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07702 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Opportunity for Designation in the Georgia Area; Request for Comments on the Official Agency Servicing This Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The designation of the official agency listed below will end on June 30, 2017. We are asking persons or governmental agencies interested in providing official services in the areas presently served by this agency to submit an application for designation. In addition, we are asking for comments on the quality of services provided by the following designated agency: Georgia Department of Agriculture (Georgia).

    DATES:

    Applications and comments must be received by May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit applications and comments concerning this notice using any of the following methods:

    Applying for Designation on the Internet: Use FGISonline (https://fgis.gipsa.usda.gov/default_home_FGIS.aspx) and then click on the Delegations/Designations and Export Registrations (DDR) link. You will need to obtain an FGISonline customer number and USDA eAuthentication username and password prior to applying.

    Submit Comments Using the Internet: Go to Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov). Instructions for submitting and reading comments are detailed on the site.

    Mail, Courier or Hand Delivery: Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    Fax: Sharon Lathrop, 816-872-1257.

    Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 79(f) of the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA) authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79(f)). Under section 79(g) of the USGSA, designations of official agencies are effective for no longer than five years, unless terminated by the Secretary, and may be renewed according to the criteria and procedures prescribed in section 79(f) of the USGSA.

    Areas Open for Designation State of Georgia

    Pursuant to Section 79(f)(2) of the United States Grain Standards Act, the following geographic area in the State of Georgia is assigned to this official agency.

    In Georgia

    The entire State, except those export port locations within the State, which are serviced by GIPSA.

    Opportunity for Designation

    Interested persons or governmental agencies may apply for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas specified above under the provisions of section 79(f) of the USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196. Designation in the specified geographic area in Georgia is for the period beginning July 1, 2017, to June 30, 2022. To apply for designation or to request more information, contact Sharon Lathrop at the address listed above.

    Request for Comments

    We are publishing this notice to provide interested persons the opportunity to comment on the quality of services provided by the Georgia official agency. In the designation process, we are particularly interested in receiving comments citing reasons and pertinent data supporting or objecting to the designation of the applicant. Submit all comments to Sharon Lathrop at the above address or at http://www.regulations.gov.

    All applications and comments will be available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)). We consider applications, comments, and other available information when determining which applicants will be designated.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07699 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Designation for the Decatur, IN Area AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    GIPSA is announcing the designation of Northeast Indiana Grain Inspection, Inc. (Northeast Indiana) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.

    DATES:

    Effective January 1, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415, [email protected] or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the December 12, 2016, Federal Register (81 FR 89428), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic area presently serviced by Northeast Indiana. Applications were due by January 11, 2017.

    The current official agency, Northeast Indiana, was the only applicant for designation to provide official services in this area. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

    GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that Northeast Indiana is qualified to provide official services in the geographic area specified in the Federal Register on December 12, 2016. This designation to provide official services in the specified area of Northeast Indiana is effective January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021.

    Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting this agency at the following telephone number:

    Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation start Designation end Northeast Indiana Decatur, IN 260-341-7497 1/1/2017 12/31/2021

    Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)). All applications and comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    Randall D. Jones, Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07686 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017-2019 Company Organization Survey AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Carrie Hill, Economic Statistical Methods Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 5H069, Washington, DC 20233-6100 (or by email at [email protected])

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    The Census Bureau conducts the annual Company Organization Survey (COS) to update and maintain a central, multipurpose Business Register (BR) database. In particular, the COS supplies critical information on the composition, organizational structure, and operating characteristics of multi-location companies.

    The BR serves two fundamental purposes:

    —First and most important, it provides sampling populations and enumeration lists for the Census Bureau's economic surveys and censuses, and it serves as an integral part of the statistical foundation underlying those programs. Essential for this purpose is the BR's ability to identify all known United States business establishments and their parent companies. Further, the BR must accurately record basic business attributes needed to control sampling and enumeration. These attributes include industrial and geographic classifications, and name and address information. —Second, it provides establishment data that serve as the basis for the annual County Business Patterns (CBP) statistical series. The CBP publications present data on number of establishments, first quarter payroll, annual payroll, and mid-March employment summarized by industry and employment size class for the United States, the District of Columbia, island areas, counties, and country-equivalents. No other annual or more frequent series of industry statistics provides comparable detail, particularly for small geographic areas. II. Method of Collection

    The 2017-2019 COS collection strategy will focus on electronic reporting as the standard collection option. The Census Bureau will conduct the 2017 COS in conjunction with the 2017 Economic Census and will coordinate these collections to minimize response burden. The consolidated COS/census mail canvass will direct inquiries to the entire universe of multi-location enterprises that comprises roughly 164,000 parent companies and more than 1.6 million establishments. Additional COS inquiries will apply to the 15,000 multi-unit establishments classified in industries that are out-of-scope of the economic census.

    The 2018-2019 COS will request company-level information from a selection of multi-establishment enterprises, which comprise roughly 42,000 parent companies and more than 1.4 million establishments. Additionally, the panel will include approximately 5,000 large single-location companies that may have added locations during the year.

    Electronic reporting will be available to all 2017-2019 COS respondents. Companies will receive and return responses by secure Internet transmission. The instrument will include inquiries on ownership or control by domestic or foreign parent, ownership of foreign affiliates, leased employment and cooperative organization. Further, the instrument will list an inventory of establishments belonging to the company and its subsidiaries, and request updates to these inventories, including additions, deletions and changes to information on EIN, name and address, industrial classification, end-of-year operating status, mid-March employment, first quarter payroll and annual payroll. Beginning with the 2017 collection, a new question regarding cooperative organization status will be included in the instrument but respondents will no longer receive inquiries pertaining to the Enterprise Statistics Program as the program has been suspended.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0444.

    Form Number(s): NC-99001 (for multi-establishment enterprises during 2017-2019) and NC-99007 (for single-location companies during 2018-2019).

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Businesses and not-for-profit institutions.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 164,000 for 2017 and 47,000 per year for 2018-2019.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.44 hours for 2017 and 3.4 hours for 2018-2019.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 72,160 hours for 2017 and

    159,800 hours for 2018-2019.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 131 and 182.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07624 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    Agency: U.S. Census Bureau.

    Title: Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey.

    OMB Control Number: 0607-0190.

    Form Number(s): SM4217-A, SM4217-E.

    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Number of Respondents: 4,200.

    Average Hours per Response: 7 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 5,880.

    Needs and Uses: The Monthly Wholesale Trade Survey (MWTS) canvasses firms primarily engaged in merchant wholesale trade that are located in the United States, excluding manufacturers' sales branches and offices (MSBOs). This survey provides the only continuous measure of monthly wholesale sales, end-of-month inventories, and inventories-to-sales ratios. The sales and inventories estimates produced from the MWTS provide current trends of economic activity by kind of business for the United States. Also, the estimates compiled from this survey provide valuable information for economic policy decisions by the government and are widely used by private businesses, trade organizations, professional associations, and other business research and analysis organizations.

    Estimates from the MWTS are released in three different reports each month. High level aggregate estimates for end-of-month inventories are first released as part of the Advance Economic Indicators Report. Second, the full Monthly Wholesale Trade Report containing both sales and inventories estimates is released. Lastly, high level sales and inventories estimates from the MWTS are also released as part of the Manufacturing and Trade Inventories and Sales (MTIS) report. The Advance Economic Indicators Report is a new report first released on July 28, 2016, and will be released monthly on an ongoing basis.

    As one of the U.S. Census Bureau's principal economic indicators, the estimates produced by the MWTS are critical to the accurate measurement of total economic activity of the United States. The estimates of sales made by wholesale locations represent only merchant wholesalers, excluding MSBOs, who typically take title to goods bought for resale and sell to other businesses. The sales estimates include sales made on credit as well as on a cash basis, but exclude receipts from sales taxes and interest charges from credit sales.

    The estimates of inventories represent all merchandise held in wholesale locations, warehouses, and offices, as well as goods held by others for sale on consignment or in transit for distribution to wholesale establishments. The estimates of inventories exclude fixtures and supplies not for resale, as well as merchandise held on consignment, which are owned by others. Inventories are an important component in the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) calculation of the investment portion of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

    The U.S. Census Bureau publishes wholesale sales and inventories estimates based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which has been widely adopted throughout both the public and private sectors.

    The Census Bureau tabulates the collected data to provide, with measurable reliability, statistics on sales, end-of-month inventories, and inventories-to-sales ratios for merchant wholesalers, excluding MSBOs.

    The BEA is the primary Federal user of data collected in the MWTS. The BEA uses estimates from this survey to prepare the national income and product accounts (NIPA), input-output accounts (I-O), and gross domestic product (GDP) by industry. End-of-month inventories are used to prepare the change in private inventories component of GDP. The BEA also uses the Advance Economic Indicators Report to improve the inventory valuation adjustments applied to estimates of the Advance Gross Domestic Product. Sales are used to prepare estimates of real inventories-to-sales ratios in the NIPAs, extrapolate proprietors' income for wholesalers (until tax return data become available) in the NIPAs, and extrapolate annual current-dollar gross output for the most recent year in annual I-O tables, GDP-by-industry, and advance GDP-by-industry estimates.

    The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses the data as input to its Producer Price Indexes and in developing productivity measurements. Private businesses use the wholesale sales and inventories data in computing business activity indexes. Other government agencies and businesses use this information for market research, product development, and business planning to gauge the current trends of the economy.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.

    Frequency: Monthly.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C., Sections 131 and 182.

    This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sheleen Dumas, PRA Departmental Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07625 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-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 [4/3/2017 through 4/10/2017] Firm name Firm address Date accepted
  • for
  • investigation
  • Product(s)
    Cortland Machine & Tool Company, Inc 60-62 Grant Street; Post Office Box 27, Cortland, NY 13045 4/3/2017 The firm manufactures CNC machined parts of steel, iron, aluminum, cooper and plastics. Sims Vibration Laboratory, Inc. d/b/a Limbsaver 50 W Rose Nye Way, Shelton, WA 98584 4/6/2017 The firm manufactures vibration dampening accessories for firearms and archery as well as minor sales of vibration dampening for home hardware and lawn and garden industries.

    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. 2017-07627 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-WH-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-23-2017] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 203—Moses Lake, Washington, Proposed Revision to Production Authority, SGL Automotive Carbon Fibers, LLC, (Carbon Fiber), Moses Lake, Washington

    SGL Automotive Carbon Fibers, LLC (SGLACF), operator of FTZ 203—Site 3, submitted a notification that proposes a revision to its existing production authority at its facility located in Moses Lake, Washington. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 30, 2017.

    SGLACF previously requested and received FTZ Board approval for authority to produce carbon fiber from foreign-status polyacrylonitrile (PAN) fiber for export only within Site 3 of FTZ 203 (see FTZ Board Order 1889, 78 FR 16247, 3/14/2013). Under that existing authority, SGLACF must export all carbon fiber made from foreign-status PAN fiber. In the current request, SGLACF proposes to replace the export-only limitation pertaining to carbon fiber produced from foreign-status PAN fiber with a requirement for the company to admit all foreign-status PAN fiber (duty rate 7.5%) in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41).

    SGLACF's notification indicates the following: Production under FTZ procedures with the proposed PF status requirement for admission of foreign-status PAN fiber could exempt the company from customs duty payments on foreign-status PAN fiber used in export production. For SGLACF's domestic sales of carbon fiber, PF status would not allow the company to elect the carbon fiber duty rate (free) on the value of foreign-status PAN fiber used to produce the carbon fiber, thereby precluding inverted tariff savings. In addition, at the time of customs entry for each shipment of carbon fiber to the U.S. market, the company would apply the PAN fiber duty rate (7.5%) on an estimated value of PAN fiber contained in scrap resulting from the production process (based on the actual percentage of scrap from the preceding year's production). SGLACF's scrap rate was about 1% in 2016. The company is seeking these changes to its FTZ authority for “logistical recordkeeping purposes.”

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is May 30, 2017.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07705 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-870] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: 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 oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). The period of review (POR) is July 18, 2014, through August 31, 2015. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations, and, therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the section “Final Results of Review.” Further, we continue to find that certain companies had no reviewable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Scott or Victoria Cho, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2657 or (202) 482-5075, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 14, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 For the events that occurred since the Preliminary Results, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 These final results cover 50 companies.3 The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 71074 (October 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results), and accompanying Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea,” dated October 5, 2016 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    2See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary, for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2014-2015 Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice and incorporated herein by reference.

    3 The 50 companies consist of two mandatory respondents, six companies for which we made a final determination of no shipments, and 42 companies not individually examined.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is certain OCTG, which are hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, regardless of end finish (e.g., whether or not plain end, threaded, or threaded and coupled) whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (API) or non-API specifications, whether finished (including limited service OCTG products) or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products), whether or not thread protectors are attached. The scope of the order also covers OCTG coupling stock. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted with this notice. A list of the issues which parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, can be found in Appendix I to this notice. 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 is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, 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 version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the Preliminary Results. For SeAH Steel Corporation (SeAH), the Department: (1) Reallocated SeAH's hot-rolled coil (HRC) costs based on the common HRC grade; (2) adjusted SeAH's reported HRC costs to reflect the particular market situation; (3) adjusted SeAH's reported cost of manufacturing to reflect the arm's-length prices for affiliated services; (4) included the net losses associated with damaged pipes in the reported further manufacturing costs; and (5) applied Pusan Pipe America Inc. (PPA)'s general and administrative (G&A) expense ratio to the total cost of further manufactured products, that is, the further manufacturing cost plus the cost of production of the imported OCTG, because the denominator of the G&A ratio included these costs. Also, the Department allocated PPA's G&A expense to the cost of all non-further manufactured subject products resold by PPA.

    For NEXTEEL Co., Ltd. (NEXTEEL), the Department: (1) Adjusted NEXTEEL's reported HRC costs to reflect the particular market situation; (2) updated the constructed value information used for NEXTEEL to reflect SeAH's information after adjustments for the final results; (3) revised the payment dates for certain sales subject to a lawsuit, and recalculated credit expenses based on those dates; (4) redefined the universe of sales to base the margin calculation on sales which entered the United States during the POR; (5) corrected a clerical error (i.e., we revised the margin program to use the correct quantity variable); and (6) revised the calculation of certain U.S. freight and storage expenses and the universe of sales to which we applied these expenses.

    For a full discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily determined that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation had no shipments during the POR.4 Following publication of the Preliminary Results, we received no comments from interested parties regarding these companies. As a result, and because the record contains no evidence to the contrary, we continue to find that Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation made no shipments during the POR. Accordingly, consistent with the Department's practice, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by these six companies, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.5

    4See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 71074.

    5See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922, 26923 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (September 17, 2010).

    Rate for Non-Examined Companies

    The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual review in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely {on the basis of facts available}.”

    In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for SeAH and NEXTEEL that are not zero, de minimis, or determined entirely on the basis of facts available. Accordingly, the Department assigned to the companies not individually examined (see Appendix II for a full list of these companies) a margin of 13.84 percent, which is the simple average 6 of SeAH's and NEXTEEL's calculated weighted-average dumping margins.

    6 We calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents because complete publicly ranged sales data were not available.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 18, 2014 through August 31, 2015:

    7See Appendix II for a full list of these companies.

    Exporter or producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • NEXTEEL Co., Ltd 24.92 SeAH Steel Corporation 2.76 Non-examined companies 7 13.84
    Disclosure

    The Department intends to disclose the calculations performed for these final results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Assessment

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review in the Federal Register.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).8 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.9 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.10 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.11

    8See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    9Id.

    10Id.

    11See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).

    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the methodology described in the “Rates for Non-Examined Companies” section, above.

    Consistent with the Department's assessment practice, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by SeAH, NEXTEEL, or the non-examined companies for which the producer did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.12

    12 For a full discussion of this practice, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

    As noted in the “Final Determination of No Shipments” section, above, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by Hyundai Glovis, Hyundai Mobis, Hyundai RB, Kolon Global, POSCO Plantec, and Samsung C&T Corporation, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective 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 for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for the companies listed in these final results will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment in which the company was reviewed; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 5.24 percent,13 the all-others rate established in the LTFV investigation. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    13See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Determination, 81 FR 59603 (August 30, 2016).

    Notification to Importers

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

    Notification to Interested Parties Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 or 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: April 11, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. List of Issues A. General Issues Comment 1: Calculation of Constructed Value Profit Comment 2: Differential Pricing Comment 3: Particular Market Situation Comment 4: Memoranda Placed on the Record by the Department B. SeAH-Specific Issues Comment 5: Whether to Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to SeAH A. Whether SeAH Manipulated Its Margin B. U.S. Sales of Non-Prime Products C. CONNUMs With Negative Costs D. Cost Difference Related to Timing Differences of Production and Not to Physical Characteristics E. Information on Inputs From Affiliated Parties F. SeAH's Inventory Movement Schedules for OCTG G. International Freight Expenses H. Transaction-Specific Reporting of Certain Movement Expenses I. Reporting of Payment Terms for Canadian Sales J. U.S. Warehousing Expenses K. Price Adjustments for Certain U.S. Sales L. Korean Inland Freight M. Warranty Expenses N. Inventory Movement Schedules for By-Products and Scrap O. Costs To Repair Damaged Products P. PPA's Unconsolidated Financial Statements Comments 6-16: Whether To Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available to SeAH Comment 6: Date of Sale Comment 7: International Freight Comment 8: Canadian Inland Freight Comment 9: Certain Movement Expenses Comment 10: Packing Expenses Comment 11: Adjustment to SeAH's Costs Related to U.S. Non-Prime Merchandise Comment 12: Disregard SeAH's Revised Database Purporting To Reflect Weighted-Average Costs of HRC Comment 13: SeAH's Cost Variances Comment 14: PPA's General and Administrative (G&A) Expenses Related to Resold U.S. Products Comment 15: SeAH's Scrap Offset Comment 16: Valuation of SeAH's Non-Prime Products Comment 17: Interested Party Standing Comment 18: Timeliness of Market-Viability Allegation Comment 19: Reporting of Grade Codes Comment 20: Freight Revenue Cap Comment 21: International Freight for Certain Third-Country Sales Comment 22: SeAH's Useable Cost Database Comment 23: Use of Average HRC Cost by Grade for SeAH Comment 24: Procedural Issue Regarding Service of Case Brief Comment 25: Procedural Issue Regarding Sanctions for Improper Conduct C. NEXTEEL-Specific Issues Comment 26: Whether To Apply Total Adverse Facts Available to NEXTEEL A. Lawsuit Between POSCO Daewoo and Atlas B. Expenses Incurred by a Certain Affiliate C. Expenses and Revenues Booked by NEXTEEL and a Certain Affiliate D. Inventory Movement Schedule E. Hot-Rolled Coil Grades Used To Produce OCTG Comment 27: NEXTEEL's Unpaid U.S. Sales to Atlas Comment 28: Whether the Unpaid Sales Constitute Bad Debt Comment 29: Upgradeable HRC Comment 30: Transferred Quantities of OCTG in NEXTEEL's COP Data Comment 31: Sales Adjustment for Certain Expenses Comment 32: Major Input Adjustment for Hot-Rolled Coil Comment 33: Cost Adjustment for Downgraded, Non-OCTG Pipe Comment 34: Suspended Losses Comment 35: Valuation Allowances of Raw Materials and Finished Goods Inventories Comment 36: Affiliation Comment 37: Universe of U.S. Sales Comment 38: U.S. Freight and Storage III. Background IV. Scope of the Order V. Margin Calculations VI. Rate for Non-Examined Companies VII. Discussion of the Issues VIII. Recommendation Appendix II—List of Companies Not Individually Examined A.R. Williams Materials AJU Besteel Co., Ltd. AK Steel BDP International Cantak Corporation Daewoo International Corporation Dong-A Steel Co., Ltd. Dong Yang Steel Pipe Dongbu Incheon Steel Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd. Dongkuk S and C DSEC EEW Korea Erndtebruecker Eisenwerk and Company GS Global H K Steel Hansol Metal HG Tubulars Canada Ltd. Husteel Co., Ltd. Hyundai HYSCO 14

    14 On September 21, 2016, the Department published the final results of a changed circumstances review with respect to OCTG from Korea, finding that Hyundai Steel is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai HYSCO for purposes of determining antidumping duty cash deposits and liabilities. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 64873 (September 21, 2016). Hyundai Steel Company is also known as Hyundai Steel Corporation and Hyundai Steel Co. Ltd.

    Hyundai HYSCO Co., Ltd. Hyundai Steel Company Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. ILJIN Steel Corporation Kukbo Logix Kukje Steel Kumkang Industrial Co., Ltd. McJunkin Red Man Tubular NEXTEEL Q&T Nippon Arwwl and Aumikin Vuaan Korea Co., Ltd. Phocennee POSCO Processing and Acy Service Samson Sedae Entertech Steel Canada Steel Flower Steelpia Sung Jin TGS Pipe Toyota Tsusho Corporation UNI Global Logistics Yonghyun Base Materials
    [FR Doc. 2017-07684 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-469-815] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From Spain: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that finished carbon steel flanges from Spain are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Flessner or Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6312 or (202) 482-0167, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 8, 2017, the Department published the preliminary affirmative determination of sales at LTFV in the investigation of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain.1 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Determination. We received no comments from interested parties.

    1See Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 82 FR 9723 (February 8, 2017) (Preliminary Determination).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is finished carbon steel flanges from Spain. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Verification

    Because the mandatory respondent in this investigation did not provide the information requested, the Department did not conduct verification.

    Analysis of Comments Received and Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    As noted above, we received no comments pertaining to the Preliminary Determination. For the purposes of the final determination, the Department has made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    As stated in the Preliminary Determination, we found that the mandatory respondent in this investigation, ULMA Forja, S.Coop (ULMA), did not cooperate to the best of its ability and, accordingly, we determined it appropriate to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference, in accordance with section 776(a)-(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).2 For the purposes of the final determination, the Department has made no changes to the Preliminary Determination.

    2See Preliminary Determination at 9724 and the accompanying 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, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain,” dated January 26, 2017 (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), at 3-7.

    All-Others Rate

    As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, the Department based the selection of the “all-others” rate on the simple average of the two dumping margins calculated for subject merchandise from Spain provided in the Petition (as recalculated by the Department for initiation purposes),3 in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, and determined a rate of 18.81 percent. We made no changes to the “all-others” rate for this final determination.4

    3See Letter from Weldbend Corporation and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P. (collectively, petitioners) to the Secretary of the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Secretary of Commerce entitled, “Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain: 2nd Supplemental Questionnaire Response,” dated July 13, 2016, at 2 and Exhibit 1. See also AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from Spain (July 20, 2016) (in which the petition margins were recalculated for purposes of initiation).

    4See Preliminary Determination, 82 FR at 9724-9725.

    Final Determination

    The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margins
  • (percent)
  • ULMA Forja, S.Coop 24.43 All Others 18.81
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, for this final determination, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 8, 2017, the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as follows: (1) For ULMA, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will be 18.81 percent, as discussed in the “All-Others Rate” section, above.

    The instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    The weighted-average dumping margin assigned to the mandatory respondent in this investigation in the Preliminary Determination was based on adverse facts available and the Department described the method it used to determine the adverse facts available rate in the Preliminary Determination. As we made no changes to this margin since the Preliminary Determination, no additional disclosure of calculations is necessary for this final determination.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from Spain in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all securities posted will be refunded or canceled. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or 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.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers finished carbon steel flanges. Finished carbon steel flanges differ from unfinished carbon steel flanges (also known as carbon steel flange forgings) in that they have undergone further processing after forging, including, but not limited to, beveling, bore threading, center or step boring, face machining, taper boring, machining ends or surfaces, drilling bolt holes, and/or de-burring or shot blasting. Any one of these post-forging processes suffices to render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this investigation. However, mere heat treatment of a carbon steel flange forging (without any other further processing after forging) does not render the forging into a finished carbon steel flange for purposes of this investigation.

    While these finished carbon steel flanges are generally manufactured to specification ASME B16.5 or ASME B16.47 series A or series B, the scope is not limited to flanges produced under those specifications. All types of finished carbon steel flanges are included in the scope regardless of pipe size (which may or may not be expressed in inches of nominal pipe size), pressure class (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in pounds of pressure, e.g., 150, 300, 400, 600, 900, 1500, 2500, etc.), type of face (e.g., flat face, full face, raised face, etc.), configuration (e.g., weld neck, slip on, socket weld, lap joint, threaded, etc.), wall thickness (usually, but not necessarily, expressed in inches), normalization, or whether or not heat treated. These carbon steel flanges either meet or exceed the requirements of the ASTM A105, ASTM A694, ASTM A181, ASTM A350 and ASTM A707 standards (or comparable foreign specifications). The scope includes any flanges produced to the above-referenced ASTM standards as currently stated or as may be amended. The term “carbon steel” under this scope is steel in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements:

    (b) The carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 0.87 percent of aluminum;

    (ii) 0.0105 percent of boron;

    (iii) 10.10 percent of chromium;

    (iv) 1.55 percent of columbium;

    (v) 3.10 percent of copper;

    (vi) 0.38 percent of lead;

    (vii) 3.04 percent of manganese;

    (viii) 2.05 percent of molybdenum;

    (ix) 20.15 percent of nickel;

    (x) 1.55 percent of niobium;

    (xi) 0.20 percent of nitrogen;

    (xii) 0.21 percent of phosphorus;

    (xiii) 3.10 percent of silicon;

    (xiv) 0.21 percent of sulfur;

    (xv) 1.05 percent of titanium;

    (xvi) 4.06 percent of tungsten;

    (xvii) 0.53 percent of vanadium; or

    (xviii) 0.015 percent of zirconium.

    Finished carbon steel flanges are currently classified under subheadings 7307.91.5010 and 7307.91.5050 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). They may also be entered under HTSUS subheadings 7307.91.5030 and 7307.91.5070. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-07680 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Public Comments and Hearing Regarding Administration Report on Significant Trade Deficits AGENCY:

    Office of the United States Trade Representative, International Trade Administration, United States Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearing and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13786 of March 31 2017, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative (USTR), in consultation with the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, Defense, Agriculture, and Homeland Security and the heads of any other executive departments or agencies with relevant expertise, as determined by the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR, shall prepare and submit to the President an Omnibus Report on Significant Trade Deficits. The Executive Order can be found here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/31/presidential-executive-order-regarding-omnibus-report-significant-trade.

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) and USTR will hold a public hearing and seek written comments to assist in the analysis for the assessment called for in Executive Order 13786. The trading partners with which the United States had a significant trade deficit in goods in 2016 (in alphabetical order) were Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam.

    DATES:

    The schedule and deadlines are as follows:

    Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT): Deadline for interested persons to submit written comments. Also, this is the deadline for requests to appear at the hearing, which must include a summary of your testimony.

    Thursday, May 18, 2017: A public hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

    ADDRESSES:

    All written comments, requests to appear at the hearing, hearing summaries, and rebuttal comments must be in English and submitted electronically via the Internet at www.regulations.gov docket number DOC 2017-0003. For alternatives to on-line submissions please contact Patrick Kirwan, Director of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Secretariat, U.S. Department of Commerce, at (202) 482-5455 or [email protected] The public is strongly encouraged to file submissions electronically rather than by facsimile or mail. Follow the instructions for submitting comments in section C below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For procedural questions concerning written comments or participating in the public hearing, contact Patrick Kirwan at (202) 482-5455 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Topics on Which Commerce and USTR Seek Information

    To assist Commerce and USTR in preparing the Report, commenters should submit information related to one or more of the assessments called for in the Executive Order:

    For each identified trading partner with which the United States had a significant trade deficit in goods in 2016, the Report shall:

    (a) Assess the major causes of the trade deficit including, as applicable, differential tariffs, non-tariff barriers, injurious dumping, injurious government subsidization, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, denial of worker rights and labor standards, and any other form of discrimination against the commerce of the United States or other factors contributing to the deficit;

    (b) assess whether the trading partner is, directly or indirectly, imposing unequal burdens on, or unfairly discriminating in fact against, the commerce of the United States by law, regulation, or practice and thereby placing the commerce of the United States at an unfair disadvantage;

    (c) assess the effects of the trade relationship on the production capacity and strength of the manufacturing and defense industrial bases of the United States;

    (d) assess the effects of the trade relationship on employment and wage growth in the United States; and

    (e) identify imports and trade practices that may be impairing the national security of the United States.

    Commenters may also address the following questions which are relevant for the assessment:

    (a) Which bilateral trade deficits are structural or cyclical rather than mercantilist-driven?

    (b) To what extent are non-market economies operating within a market-based system create trade imbalances?

    (c) To what extent does chronic industrial overcapacity resulting from government subsidies affect the U.S. trade deficit?

    (d) Have free trade agreements contributed to bilateral trade deficits and how?

    (e) To what extent have weak enforcement and dispute resolution mechanisms inadequately addressed trade issues that result in trade deficits?

    (f) Are there any other factors related to trade deficits that the report should consider?

    With regard to manufacturing and the defense industrial base (with specific focus on electronics, aerospace, avionics, materials, machinery, and equipment), comments may address how the following requirements or practices of trading partners have affected opportunities for increased U.S. exports, profitability, and employment:

    (a) Mandated coproduction and licensed production;

    (b) mandated subcontracting; counter trade;

    (c) required technology transfer;

    (d) required collaborative research and development;

    (e) mandated joint ventures and intellectual property transfer; and

    (f) required capital investments.

    B. Public Comment and Hearing

    Commerce and USTR seek public comments with respect to the above stated issues and questions. To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in section C below.

    Commerce and USTR will also convene a public hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce beginning at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, May 18, 2017. Persons wishing to appear at the hearing must provide written notification of their intention and a summary of the proposed testimony by 11:59 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, May 10, 2017 in accordance with the instructions in section C below.

    Indicate in the “Type Comment” field if you are submitting a request to appear at the hearing, and include the name, address and telephone number of the person presenting the testimony. A summary of the testimony should be attached by using the “Upload File” field. The file name should include who will be presenting the testimony. Remarks at the hearing should be limited to no more than five minutes to allow for possible questions from the panel.

    C. Requirements for Submissions

    Persons submitting a notification of intent to testify or written comments must do so in English and must identify (on the reference line of the first page of the submission) “Comments Regarding Causes of Significant Trade Deficits for 2016.” In addition, if the submission covers the causes of significant trade deficits in more than one country, commenters should, whenever possible, provide a separate submission for each country. If identifying specific sectors, commenters should identify the relevant Harmonized System (HS) category(ies) for that sector. To ensure the timely receipt and consideration of comments, Commerce and USTR strongly encourage commenters to make on-line submissions, using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.

    All submissions must be in English and must be submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov, using docket number DOC-2017-0003. Hand-delivered submissions will not be accepted.

    To submit comments via www.regulations.gov enter docket number DOC 2017-0003 on the home page and click “search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with this docket. Find a reference to this notice and click on the link entitled “Comment Now!” (For further information on using the www.regulations.gov Web site, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on “How to Use This Site” on the left side of the home page).

    The www.regulations.gov Web site allows users to provide comments by filling in a “Type Comment” field, or by attaching a document using an “Upload File” field. Commerce and USTR prefer that comments be provided in an attached document. If a document is attached, please identify the name of the country to which the submission pertains in the “Type Comment” field. For example: “See attached comments with respect to (name of country)”. Commerce and USTR prefer submissions in Microsoft Word (.doc) or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). If the submission is in an application other than those two, please indicate the name of the application in the “Type Comment” field. For any comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC”. Any page containing business confidential must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. Filers of submissions containing business confidential information must also submit a public version of their comments. The file name of the public version should begin with the character “P”. The “BC” and “P” should be followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments or reply comments. Filers submitting comments containing no business confidential information should name their file using the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

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

    As noted, Commerce and USTR strongly urge submitters to file comments through www.regulations.gov if at all possible. Any alternative arrangements must be made with Patrick Kirwan in advance of transmitting a comment. Patrick Kirwan can be reached at (202) 482-5455 or [email protected] General information concerning Commerce is available at www.commerce.gov and USTR at www.ustr.gov.

    Comments will be placed in the docket and open to public inspection, except confidential business information. Comments may be viewed on the www.regulations.gov Web site by entering the relevant docket number in the search field on the home page.

    Dated: April 13, 2017. Patrick Kirwan, Director, Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee Secretariat, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07827 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-898] Chlorinated Isocyanurates From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Results AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Court of International Trade (CIT or Court) sustained the final remand results pertaining to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (chloro isos) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering the period of June 1, 2011, through May 31, 2012. The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of the administrative review and that the Department is amending the final results with respect to the dumping margins assigned to Juangcheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd. (Kangtai), Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd. (Jiheng), and Arch Chemicals (China) Co., Ltd. (Arch).

    DATES:

    Effective January 29, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kaitlin Wojnar, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 30, 2014, the Department issued the Final Results. 1 Three parties contested the Department's findings in the Final Results. All three plaintiffs (i.e., Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch) are Chinese producers/exporters of chloro isos. Kangtai and Jiheng were mandatory respondents in the underlying administrative review; Arch was an unexamined respondent that demonstrated eligibility for separate rate status.

    1See Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 4875 (January 30, 2014) (Final Results), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    In the Final Results, the Department assigned weighted-average dumping margins of 59.12 percent and 47.17 percent to Kangtai and Jiheng, respectively.2 As a separate rate company, Arch received the margin of 53.15 percent, which is the simple average of the margins calculated for individually examined respondents.3

    2See Final Results, 79 FR at 4876.

    3Id.

    On August 21, 2015, the CIT remanded various aspects of the Final Results to the Department. In particular, the Court instructed the Department to do the following: (1) Determine whether or not the selling, general, and administrative expenses contain certain labor items and explain how the methodology used by the Department in the Final Results is supported by substantial evidence on the record; (2) select the best surrogate value (SV) rate for chlorine; (3) select the best SV for ammonium chloride; (4) select the best source of SV data for electricity; (5) reexamine the record evidence regarding the SV for ammonium sulfate; (6) explain and support the Department's change in by-product methodology; and (7) consider all arguments from interested parties concerning the deduction of irrecoverable value added tax from U.S. price.4

    4See Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 15-93, Consol. Ct. No. 14-00056 (August 21, 2015) (Kangtai I).

    Pursuant to Kangtai I, the Department issued its Final Redetermination, which addressed the Court's holdings and revised the weighted-average dumping margins for Kangtai and Jiheng to 48.72 percent and 27.99 percent, respectively, and the simple average dumping margin for Arch to 38.36 percent.5 On January 19, 2017, the CIT sustained the Department's Final Redetermination in full.6 Thus, the Court affirmed the following dumping margins as calculated by the Department in the Final Redetermination: 48.72 for Kangtai, 27.99 for Jiheng, and 38.36 for Arch.

    5See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Remand,” April 15, 2016 (Final Redetermination) (available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/15-93.pdf).

    6See Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, CIT Slip Op. 17-3, Consol. Ct. No. 14-00056 (January 19, 2017) (Kangtai II).

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 7 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 8 the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The CIT's January 19, 2016, final judgment sustaining the Final Redetermination constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the Timken publication requirements. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    7See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    8See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Final Results with respect to the dumping margins calculated for Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch. Based on the Final Redetermination, as affirmed by the CIT in Kangtai II, the revised dumping margins for Kangtai, Jiheng, and Arch from June 1, 2011, through May 31, 2012, are as follows:

    Producer/exporter Margins
  • (percent)
  • Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co., Ltd 48.72 Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co., Ltd 27.99 Arch Chemicals (China) Co., Ltd 38.36

    In the event that the CIT's rulings are not appealed or, if appealed, are upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised dumping margins listed above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Results, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for Kangtai and Jiheng.9 Therefore, this amended final determination does not change the later-established cash deposit rates for Kangtai and Jiheng. Arch does not have a superseding cash deposit rate and, therefore, the Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to CBP, adjusting the cash deposit rate for Arch to 38.36 percent, effective January 29, 2017.

    9See, e.g., Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 4852, 4852 (January 17, 2017).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07679 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-844] Certain Lined Paper Products From India: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on certain lined paper products from India for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. This review covers Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited (Goldenpalm). Based on an analysis of the comments received, the Department has made changes to the subsidy rate determined for Goldenpalm. The final subsidy rate is listed below in the section entitled, “Final Results of Administrative Review.”

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Conniff, 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) 482-1009.

    Background

    On October 11, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of this administrative review.1 On February 14, 2017, the Department issued its Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum.2 Based on the comments received from Petitioner 3 and Goldenpalm, in these final results, we made changes to our methodology for the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) program and corrected a ministerial error made in the context of our analysis of this program.4

    1See Certain Lined Paper Products from India: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; Calendar Year 2014, 81 FR 70091 (October 11, 2016), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (collectively, Preliminary Results).

    2See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations from Erin Begnal, Director, Office III, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Post-Preliminary Issues and Decision Memorandum,” dated February 14, 2017 (Post-Preliminary Analysis Memorandum).

    3 Petitioner is the Association of American School Paper Suppliers.

    4 For a discussion of these issues, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to the order is certain lined paper products. The products are currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 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.

    For a complete description of the scope of this administrative review, see Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

    5See Memorandum from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Administrative Review: Certain Lined Paper Products from India,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    The issues raised by petitioner in its case brief and Goldenpalm in its rebuttal brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.6 A list of the issues raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached at the Appendix to this notice. 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 to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://trade.gov/enforcement/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy, i.e., a government-provided financial contribution that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.7 For a description of the methodology underlying all of the Department's conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    7See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and, section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    Use of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences

    In making our findings, we relied, in part, on facts otherwise available with regard to the Duty Drawback (DDB) program. Further, because the Government of India did not act to the best of its ability to respond to the Department's requests for information concerning the DDB program, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Results of Administrative Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate for the mandatory respondent, Goldenpalm, for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, to be:

    Company Net subsidy
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Goldenpalm Manufacturers PVT Limited 6.56 percent
  • ad valorem.
  • Assessment Rates

    Consistent with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to issue assessment instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review in the amount listed above.

    Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs in the amount shown above for Goldenpalm on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit requirements that will be applied to companies covered by this order, but not examined in this review, are those established in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding for each company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the publication of these final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or 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 these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsides Valuation Information V. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VI. Analysis of Programs VII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Reject Petitioner's Case Brief Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Attribute the Benefits that Goldenpalm Received Under Certain Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) Licenses to Exports of the Subject Merchandise. Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Allocate Benefits for Certain EPCGS Licenses Over the Average Useful Life (AUL) of the Subject Merchandise Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Apply Partial Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to Goldenpalm and Whether the Department Should Use Goldenpalm's Company-Specific Interest Rates as Benchmarks Comment 5: Whether Goldenpalm Understated Its EPCGS Benefits Comment 6: Whether the Department Should Find that the Annexure 45 Program Provides Countervailable Subsidies VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-07697 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-832] Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel LaCivita, 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) 482-4243.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On October 3, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”).1

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 81 FR 67967 (October 3, 2016).

    As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked.2

    2See Pure Magnesium from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 82 FR 9198 (February 3, 2017).

    On March 15, 2017, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the existing AD order on pure magnesium from the PRC would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    3See USITC Publication 4678 (March 2017), Pure Magnesium from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-696 (Fourth Review), and Pure Magnesium from China, 82 FR 17280 (April 10, 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    Merchandise covered by the order is pure magnesium regardless of chemistry, form or size, unless expressly excluded from the scope of the order. Pure magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium and produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Pure primary magnesium is used primarily as a chemical in the aluminum alloying, desulfurization, and chemical reduction industries. In addition, pure magnesium is used as an input in producing magnesium alloy. Pure magnesium encompasses products (including, but not limited to, butt ends, stubs, crowns and crystals) with the following primary magnesium contents:

    (1) Products that contain at least 99.95% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “ultra pure” magnesium);

    (2) Products that contain less than 99.95% but not less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight (generally referred to as “pure” magnesium); and

    (3) Products that contain 50% or greater, but less than 99.8% primary magnesium, by weight, and that do not conform to ASTM specifications for alloy magnesium (generally referred to as “off-specification pure” magnesium).

    “Off-specification pure” magnesium is pure primary magnesium containing magnesium scrap, secondary magnesium, oxidized magnesium or impurities (whether or not intentionally added) that cause the primary magnesium content to fall below 99.8% by weight. It generally does not contain, individually or in combination, 1.5% or more, by weight, of the following alloying elements: Aluminum, manganese, zinc, silicon, thorium, zirconium and rare earths.

    Excluded from the scope of the order are alloy primary magnesium (that meets specifications for alloy magnesium), primary magnesium anodes, granular primary magnesium (including turnings, chips and powder) having a maximum physical dimension (i.e., length or diameter) of one inch or less, secondary magnesium (which has pure primary magnesium content of less than 50% by weight), and remelted magnesium whose pure primary magnesium content is less than 50% by weight.

    Pure magnesium products covered by the order are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.20.00, 8104.30.00, 8104.90.00, 3824.90.11, 3824.90.19 and 9817.00.90. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.4

    4 The Department has made three scope rulings regarding the subject merchandise. On November 9, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that alloy magnesium extrusion billets produced in Canada by Timminco, Ltd. from pure magnesium of Chinese origin are not within the scope of order. See Memorandum regarding Final Ruling in the Scope Inquiry on Russian and Chinese Magnesium Processed in Canada, dated November 9, 2006. On December 4, 2006, the Department issued a scope ruling, finding that pure magnesium produced in France using pure magnesium from the PRC is within the scope of the order. See Memorandum regarding Final Ruling in the Scope Inquiry on Chinese Magnesium Processed in France, dated December 4, 2006. On July 16, 2015, the Department found that Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd.'s proprietary, patented magnesium alloys are covered by the scope of the Order. See Memorandum regarding Final Scope Ruling on Dead Sea Magnesium Ltd.'s Patented Magnesium Alloys, dated July 16, 2015.

    Continuation of the Order

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

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

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07698 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-918] Steel Wire Garment Hangers From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2014-2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    For the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on steel wire garment hangers from the People's Republic of China, we find that the subject merchandise is being sold, or is likely to be sold, at less than normal value. The period of review is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculation for these final results of the antidumping duty administrative review. The final weighted-average dumping margin is listed below in the “Final Results of the Administrative Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessica Weeks or Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4877 or (202) 482-2593, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results on November 14, 2016.1 For events subsequent to the Preliminary Results, see the Department's final Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 On February 28, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department extended the deadline for issuing the final results by 30 days.3 The deadline for the final results is April 13, 2017.

    1See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 79435 (November 14, 2016) (Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice, (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    3See Memorandum to James Maeder, Senior Director, Office I, through James Doyle, Director, Office V, from Jessica Weeks, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office V, regarding “Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China (PRC): Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” (February 28, 2017).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise that is subject to the Order4 is steel wire garment hangers. The products subject to the order are currently classified under U.S. Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTSUS) subheadings 7326.20.0020, 7323.99.9060, and 7323.99.9080. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise remains dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5

    4See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 58111 (October 6, 2008) (Order).

    5See Issues and Decision Memorandum for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by interested parties in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.6 A list of the issues which parties raised 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 http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6Id.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made certain revisions to the margin calculation for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.7 The Issues and Decision Memorandum 8 and Surrogate Values Memo 9 contain further explanations and descriptions of our changes to the surrogate values selected for Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd.'s factors of production.

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum and the company-specific analysis memoranda for further explanation regarding these changes.

    8See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See Memorandum to the File through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, from Jessica Weeks, International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office V, “RE: Seventh Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Values for the Final Results,” dated concurrently with this notice (Surrogate Values Memo).

    Final Results of the Administrative Review

    Regarding the administrative review, the following weighted-average dumping margin for the period October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015 is as follows:

    10 In the first administrative review of the Order, the Department found that Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd. and Hong Kong Wells Ltd. are a single entity and, because there were no changes to the facts that supported that decision since that determination was made, we continue to find that these companies are part of a single entity for this administrative review. See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 68758, 68761 (November 9, 2010), unchanged in First Administrative Review of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 27994, 27996 (May 13, 2011); see Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2013-2014, 80 FR 69942 (November 2, 2015); see also Preliminary Results (November 14, 2016).

    Exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Shanghai Wells Hanger Co., Ltd./Hong Kong Wells Ltd 10 23.09

    Because no party requested a review of the PRC (People's Republic of China)-wide entity and the Department no longer considers the PRC-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,11 we did not conduct a review of the PRC-wide entity. Thus, the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 187.25 percent) 12 is not subject to change as a result of this review.

    11See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963, 65969-70 (November 4, 2013).

    12See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2012-2013, 80 FR 13332, and accompanying Issues and Decision memorandum (March 13, 2015)

    Assessment Rates

    Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above the de minimis threshold (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer-specific ad valorem assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales and the total entered value of sales. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific ad valorem assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

    Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer).13 Where the Department calculated a weighted-average dumping margin by dividing the total amount of dumping for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions, the Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit rates.14 Where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is greater than de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to collect the appropriate duties at the time of liquidation.15 Pursuant to the Final Modification for Reviews, 16 where an importer- (or customer-) specific ad valorem or per-unit rate is zero or de minimis, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.17

    13See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    14Id.

    15Id.

    16See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty Proceedings; Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012) (Final Modification for Reviews).

    17Id. at 8102.

    The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in NME cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the PRC-wide rate. Additionally, if the Department determines that an exporter had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number (i.e., at that exporter's rate) will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.18

    18See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011).

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporter listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, then zero cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 187.25 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Disclosure

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

    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)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice of the final results of this antidumping duty administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Changes Since the Preliminary Results Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Surrogate Country Selection Comment 2: Surrogate Financial Ratio Calculation Comment 3: Corrugated Paper Surrogate Value Comment 4: Brokerage and Handling Surrogate Value Comment 5: Value Added Tax (VAT) Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-07683 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XD949 Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permits AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The NMFS Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. This Exempted Fishing Permit would allow commercial lobster vessels to participate in a lobster growth and abundance study, under the direction of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries in state and Federal waters off the coast of Massachusetts.

    Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on Exempted Fishing Permit applications.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit written comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line “Comments on MA DMF Lobster Study EFP.”

    Mail: John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on MA DMF Lobster Study EFP.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sustainable Fisheries Division, 978-281-9315.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct a two-year lobster abundance survey with modified lobster gear that Federal regulations would otherwise restrict. The purpose of this lobster study is to provide fishery-independent data on lobster abundance in Massachusetts state waters of statistical area 514, from Ipswich Bay south to Cape Cod Bay; and state and Federal waters of Buzzards Bay, Vineyard Sound, and nearshore portions of Rhode Island Sound, in statistical areas 537 and 538. Currently, lobster abundance and distribution studies are primarily conducted through fishery-independent, random-stratified bottom-trawl surveys. MA DMF has stated that trawl surveys lack the capability to efficiently target areas with rocky bottom where lobsters also reside, and is seeking an EFP to use fixed lobster gear to sample such areas.

    The EFP would authorize commercial lobster vessels to set, haul, and retain on board lobster traps without escape vents during sampling activity. Following a soak time ranging from 3 to 5 days, these lobster traps would be hauled twice per month on dedicated sampling trips, with at least one scientist from MA DMF on board during sampling activity. During sampling trips, no catch will be retained for sale.

    MA DMF requests exemption from lobster gear regulations to allow for traps without escape vents in order to catch lobsters of all sizes. MA DMF is also requesting exemption from lobster trap limits. This would allow participating vessels to retain on-board survey lobster traps that may cause vessels to exceed their permitted allocation for Lobster Management Area (LMA) 1 (800 trap limit) or LMA 2 (historical qualification up to 800 trap limit). Federal lobster regulations require each active lobster trap to have a commercial trap tag permanently affixed. MA DMF is requesting exemption from this requirement because survey traps will be tagged with “MA DMF Research Trap.”

    MA DMF is also requesting exemption from the management area designation requirement to allow one Federal lobster permit holder to fish experimental traps in LMA 2 while having an LMA 3 designation on his Federal permit. This exemption would allow the vessel to set survey traps in an area not designated on his permit. This exemption would not allow him to commercially fish and/or land lobsters caught with traps in LMA 2.

    Site selection would be based on a random stratified sampling design, consistent with standardized methodology used to perform lobster surveys. All catch during dedicated research trips would be retained on-board for a short period of time to allow MA DMF staff to record the following information: Number of lobsters caught; number of traps hauled; set-over days; trap and bait type; lobster carapace length; sex; shell hardness; culls and other shell damage; external gross pathology including symptoms of shell disease; mortality; and ovigerous status. MA DMF is requesting exemption from management measures of LMA 1 and 2 for lobster size restrictions, v-notch possession, and egg-bearing lobster possession. MA DMF plans on retaining a small amount of lobsters for growth and maturity research purposes.

    If approved, MA DMF may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the study. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Karen H. Abrams, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07713 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF365 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan Team (BS FEP) will meet in April, in Homer, AK.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Monday, April 24, 2017, through Wednesday, April 26, 2017. The meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Monday, from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, and from 8.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Wednesday.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Alaska Islands and Ocean Visitor Center, 95 Sterling Hwy, Homer, AK 99603.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Agenda Monday, April 24, 2017, Through Wednesday, April 26, 2017

    The BS FEP agenda will include an overview of Council feedback, a discussion of goals and objectives, a joint session with the Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands LLC, discussion of the outreach plan, breakout work sessions on developing the core FEP chapters, and synthesis and next steps. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07716 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF363 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 54 assessment webinar I for HMS Sandbar Shark.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 54 assessment of the HMS Sandbar will consist of a series of assessment webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 54 assessment webinar I will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on May 15, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process, including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Webinar, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

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

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07714 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: Alaska Pacific Halibut Fisheries: Charter Recordkeeping.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0575.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1,086.

    Average Hours per Response:

    Burden Hours:

    Needs and Uses:

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07658 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Northeast Region Observer Providers Requirements AGENCY:

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Alyson Pitts, (978) 281-9352, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has the responsibility for the conservation and management of marine fishery resources. Much of this responsibility has been delegated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Under this stewardship role, the Secretary was given certain regulatory authorities to ensure the most beneficial uses of these resources. One of the regulatory steps taken to carry out the conservation and management objectives is to collect data from users of the resource.

    Regulations at 50 CFR 648.11(g) require observer service providers to comply with specific requirements in order to operate as an approved provider in the Atlantic sea scallop (scallop) fishery. Observer service providers must comply with the following requirements: Submit applications for approval as an observer service provider; formally request observer training by the Northeast Fisheries Observer Program (NEFOP); submit observer deployment reports and biological samples; give notification of whether a vessel must carry an observer within 24 hours of the vessel owner's notification of a prospective trip; maintain an updated contact list of all observers that includes the observer identification number; observer's name mailing address, email address, phone numbers, homeports or fisheries/trip types assigned, and whether or not the observer is “in service.” The regulations also require observer service providers submit any outreach materials, such as informational pamphlets, payment notification, and descriptions of observer duties as well as all contracts between the service provider and entities requiring observer services for review to NMFS/NEFOP. Observer service providers also have the option to respond to application denials, and submit a rebuttal in response to a pending removal from the list of approved observer providers. These requirements allow NMFS/NEFOP to effectively administer the scallop observer program.

    II. Method of Collection

    The approved observer service providers submit information to NMFS/NEFOP via email, fax, or postal service.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0546.

    Form Number: None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organization.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 515.

    Estimated Time per Response: Application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; applicant response to denial of application for approval of observer service provider, 10 hours; observer service provider request for observer training, 30 minutes; observer deployment report, 10 minutes; observer availability report, 10 minutes; safety refusal report, 30 minutes; submission of raw observer data, 5 minutes; observer debriefing, 2 hours; biological samples, 5 minutes; rebuttal of pending removal from list of approved observer service providers, 8 hours; vessel request to observer service provider for procurement of a certified observer, 25 minutes; vessel request for waiver of observer coverage requirement, 5 minutes; observer contact list updates, 5 minutes; observer availability updates, 1 minute; service provider material submissions, 30 minutes; service provider contracts, 30 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,675.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $46,600.

    IV. Request for Comments

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

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

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07717 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XF364 North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Crab Plan Team will meet in May, in Juneau, AK.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Wednesday, May 3, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Thursday, May 4, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Friday, May 5, 2017, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Federal building at 709 W. 9th Street, Juneau, AK 99802.

    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W 4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diana Stram, Council staff; telephone: (907) 271-2809.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda Tuesday, May 2, 2017, Through Friday, May 5, 2017

    The agenda will include: (a) Final assessments for Western Aleutian Island Red King Crab, Pribilof Island Golden King Crab, and Aleutian Island Golden King Crab, (b) research priorities, (c) model scenarios for fall crab assessments, and (d) review BOF Tanner Crab harvest strategy and proposals.

    Meeting materials will be made available on the Council Web site (www.npfmc.org) prior to the meeting.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07715 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Threat Reduction Advisory Committee; Notice of Closed Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Federal Advisory Committee Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense announces the following closed Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Threat Reduction Advisory Committee (TRAC).

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 4, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday, May 5, 2017, from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 3074 Centreville Road, Herndon, VA 20171 on May 4, 2017 and the morning of May 5, 2017, and the Pentagon, Washington, DC on the afternoon of May 5, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) J2/5, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of Meeting: This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) (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 TRAC will obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the TRAC's mission to provide advice on technology security, countering weapons of mass destruction (CWMD), counterterrorism, and counter-proliferation.

    Agenda: All discussions for the two-day meeting will be classified at the SECRET level or higher. On May 4, 2017, Alternate Designated Federal Officer Stephen Polchek will make his remarks, and then the TRAC Chair, Ambassador Ronald Lehman, will open the meeting with comments that outline the topics to be covered in the two-day meeting. Following the opening remarks, there will be a classified intelligence briefing covering CWMD issues related to North Korea, Russia and emerging chemical threats from state and non-state actors. The TRAC will receive a classified briefing from United States Special Operations Command on reachback and CWMD capabilities. The TRAC will hold a working lunch to hear from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological (NCB) Defense Programs, Dr. Arthur Hopkins on updates from the NCB Program and the implications for DoD's CWMD mission. The TRAC will hold classified discussions regarding feedback received on the Russia study from senior DoD leadership. The TRAC will hear from Honorable Benkert and Dr. Choi on the status of the China study. Next, the TRAC will discuss new studies proposed by the TRAC's sponsor, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) including the Unified Command Plan CWMD mission change.

    The TRAC will continue the meeting on May 5, 2017. The group will first review observations and discuss next steps for the TRAC in calendar years 2017-2018 based on the sponsor's guidance and direction. The TRAC will then receive a classified brief from COL McAlpine, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, on the nuclear posture review and the implications for the TRAC's work on Russia, China and North Korea. The TRAC will hear from Dr. Hassell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense Program, on the chemical and biological program. The TRAC will then hear from USSOCOM on the implementation of the CWMD mission. This discussion will continue through lunch. The TRAC members will then transition to the Pentagon where they will provide Mr. MacStravic, Performing the Duties of Under Secretary of Defense, AT&L with a brief on the North Korea, and China studies from the previous day's meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Chair will adjourn the 40th Plenary.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to section 10(d) of the FACA, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that the meeting shall be closed to the public. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that all sessions of this meeting are required to be closed to the public because the discussions will contain classified information and matters covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1). Such classified matters are inextricably intertwined with the unclassified material and cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing secret-level or higher material.

    Advisory Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Mr. William Hostyn, DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, J2/5, 8725 John J. Kingman Road, MS 6201, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201. Email: [email protected] Phone: (703) 767-4453. Fax: (703) 767-4206.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to section 10(a)(3) of FACA and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the TRAC at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the TRAC's Designated Federal Officer. The Designated Federal Officer's contact information is listed in this notice, or it can be obtained from the General Services Administration's FACA Database: http://www.facadatabase.gov/committee/committee.aspx?cid=1663&aid=41. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the TRAC may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The Designated Federal Officer will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all TRAC members.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07626 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0044] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of the existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2017-ICCD-. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact the Applicant Products Team at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of the Collection: 2018-2019 Free Application for Federal Student Aid.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0001.

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

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 39,226,771.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 25,826,753.

    Abstract: Section 483, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), mandates that the Secretary of Education “. . . shall produce, distribute, and process free of charge common financial reporting forms as described in this subsection to be used for application and reapplication to determine the need and eligibility of a student for financial assistance . . .”.

    The determination of need and eligibility are for the following Title IV, HEA, federal student financial assistance programs: The Federal Pell Grant Program; the Campus-Based programs (Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), Federal Work-Study (FWS), and the Federal Perkins Loan Program); the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program; the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant; and the Iraq and Afghanistan Service Grant.

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), an office of the U.S. Department of Education, subsequently developed an application process to collect and process the data necessary to determine a student's eligibility to receive Title IV, HEA program assistance. The application process involves an applicant's submission of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA®). After submission and processing of the FAFSA, an applicant receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), which is a summary of the processed data they submitted on the FAFSA. The applicant reviews the SAR, and, if necessary, will make corrections or updates to their submitted FAFSA data. Institutions of higher education listed by the applicant on the FAFSA also receive a summary of processed data submitted on the FAFSA which is called the Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR).

    ED and FSA seek OMB approval of all application components as a single “collection of information”. The aggregate burden will be accounted for under OMB Control Number 1845-0001. The specific application components, descriptions, and submission methods for each are listed in Table 1.

    Table 1—Federal Student Aid Application Components Component Description Submission method Initial Submission of FAFSA FAFSA on the Web (FOTW) Online FAFSA that offers applicants a customized experience Submitted by the applicant via fafsa.gov. FOTW—Renewal Online FAFSA for applicants who have previously completed the FAFSA FOTW—EZ Online FAFSA for applicants who qualify for the Simplified Needs Test (SNT) or Automatic Zero (Auto Zero) needs analysis formulas FOTW—EZ Renewal Online FAFSA for applicants who have previously completed the FAFSA and who qualify for SNT or Auto Zero needs analysis formulas FAA Access Online tool that a financial aid administrator (FAA) utilizes to submit a FAFSA Submitted through faaaccess.ed.gov by an FAA on behalf of an applicant. FAA Access—Renewal Online tool that an FAA can utilize to submit a Renewal FAFSA FAA Access—EZ Online tool that an FAA can utilize to submit a FAFSA for applicants who qualify for the SNT or Auto Zero needs analysis formulas FAA Access—EZ Renewal Online tool that an FAA can utilize to submit a FAFSA for applicants who have previously completed the FAFSA and who qualify for the SNT or Auto Zero needs analysis formulas Electronic Other This is a submission done by an FAA, on behalf of the applicant, using the Electronic Data Exchange (EDE) The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process. Printed FAFSA The printed version of the PDF FAFSA for applicants who are unable to access the Internet or complete the form using FOTW Mailed by the applicant. Correcting Submitted FAFSA Information and Reviewing FAFSA Information FOTW—Corrections Any applicant who has a Federal Student Aid ID (FSA ID)—regardless of how they originally applied—may make corrections using FOTW Corrections Submitted by the applicant via fafsa.gov. Electronic Other—Corrections With the applicant's permission, corrections can be made by an FAA using the EDE The FAA may be using their mainframe computer or software to facilitate the EDE process. Paper SAR—This is a SAR and an option for corrections The full paper summary that is mailed to paper applicants who did not provide an e-mail address and to applicants whose records were rejected due to critical errors during processing. Applicants can write corrections directly on the paper SAR and mail for processing Mailed by the applicant. FAA Access—Corrections An institution can use FAA Access to correct the FAFSA Submitted through faaaccess.ed.gov by an FAA on behalf of an applicant. Internal Department Corrections The Department will submit an applicant's record for system-generated corrections There is no burden to the applicants under this correction type as these are system-based corrections. FSAIC Corrections Any applicant, with their Data Release Number (DRN), can change the postsecondary institutions listed on their FAFSA or change their address by calling FSAIC These changes are made directly in the CPS system by an FSAIC representative. SAR Electronic (eSAR) The eSAR is an online version of the SAR that is available on FOTW to all applicants with an FSA ID. Notification for the eSAR are sent to students who applied electronically or by paper and provided an e-mail address. These notifications are sent by e-mail and include a secure hyperlink that takes the user to the FOTW site Cannot be submitted for processing.

    This information collection also documents an estimate of the annual public burden as it relates to the application process for federal student aid. The Applicant Burden Model (ABM) measures applicant burden through an assessment of the activities each applicant conducts in conjunction with other applicant characteristics and, in terms of burden, the average applicant's experience. Key determinants of the ABM include:

    • The total number of applicants that will potentially apply for federal student aid;

    • How the applicant chooses to complete and submit the FAFSA (e.g., by paper or electronically via FOTW®);

    • How the applicant chooses to submit any corrections and/or updates (e.g., the paper SAR or electronically via FOTW Corrections);

    • The type of SAR document the applicant receives (eSAR, SAR acknowledgment, or paper SAR);

    • The formula applied to determine the applicant's expected family contribution (EFC) (full need analysis formula, Simplified Needs Test or Automatic Zero); and

    • The average amount of time involved in preparing to complete the application.

    The ABM is largely driven by the number of potential applicants for the application cycle. The total application projection for 2018-2019 is based upon two factors—estimating the growth rate of the total enrollment into post-secondary education and applying the growth rate to the FAFSA submissions. The ABM is also based on the application options available to students and parents. ED accounts for each application component based on Web trending tools, survey information and other ED data sources.

    For 2018-2019, ED is reporting a net burden increase of 5,790,741 hours.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07620 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Application for New Awards; Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies; Part II of the Formula Grant Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE) Applications AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies

    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.060A.

    Dates

    Part II of EASIE Applications Available: May 17, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Part II Applications: June 15, 2017.

    Note:

    Applicants must meet the deadlines for both EASIE Part I and Part II to be eligible to receive a grant. This notice inviting applications only announces dates for EASIE Part II. The notice inviting applications for EASIE Part I was published on March 13, 2017. Any application that does not meet the Part I and Part II deadlines will not be considered for funding. Failure to submit the required supplemental documentation, described under Content and Form of Application Submission in section IV of this notice, by the EASIE Part II deadline will result in an incomplete application that will not be considered for funding. The Office of Indian Education recommends uploading the documentation at least two days prior to each deadline date to ensure that any potential submission issues are resolved prior to the Part II application deadline.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Formula Grants) program provides grants to support local educational agencies (LEAs), Indian tribes and organizations, and other eligible entities in developing elementary and secondary school programs that serve Indian students. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) funds comprehensive programs that are designed to meet the unique cultural, language, and educational needs of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) students and ensure that all students meet challenging State academic standards.

    As authorized under section 6116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA),1 the Secretary will, upon receipt of an acceptable plan for the integration of education and related services, and in cooperation with other relevant Federal agencies, authorize the entity receiving the funds under this program to consolidate all Federal funds that are to be used exclusively for Indian students. Instructions for submitting an integration of education and related services plan are included in the EASIE, which is described under Application Process and Submission Information in section IV of this notice.

    1 All references to the ESEA refer to the ESEA as amended by the ESSA.

    Note:

    Under the Formula Grants program, all applicants are required to develop the project for which an application is made in open consultation with parents and teachers of Indian children, representatives of Indian tribes on Indian lands located within 50 miles of any school that the LEA will serve if such tribes have any children in such school, Indian organizations (IOs), and, if appropriate, Indian students from secondary schools, including through public hearings held to provide to the individuals described above a full opportunity to understand the program and to offer recommendations regarding the program (ESEA section 6114(c)(3)(C)). LEA applicants are required to develop the project for which an application is made with the participation and written approval of a parent committee whose membership includes parents and family members of Indian children in the LEA's schools; representatives of Indian tribes on Indian lands located within 50 miles of any school that the LEA will serve if such tribes have any children in such school; teachers in the schools; and if appropriate, Indian students attending secondary schools of the LEA (ESEA section 6114(c)(4)). The majority of the parent committee members must be parents and family members of Indian children (ESEA section 6114(c)(4)).

    Definitions: The following definition is from section 6112(d)(3) of the ESEA:

    Indian community-based organization means any organization that is composed primarily of Indian parents, family members and community members, tribal government educational officials, and tribal members, from a specific community; assists in the social, cultural, and educational development of Indians in such community; meets the unique cultural, language, and academic needs of Indian students; and demonstrates organizational and administrative capacity to manage the grant.

    Statutory Hiring Preference

    (a) Awards that are primarily for the benefit of Indians are subject to the provisions of section 7(b) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (Pub. L. 93-638). That section requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, a grantee—

    (1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and

    (2) Give to IOs and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.

    (b) For purposes of this section, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Formula grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide, on an annualized basis, $100,190,176 for Indian Education Formula Grants to LEAs. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $3,000 to $3,058,055.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $77,069.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 1,300.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: 12 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: The following entities are eligible under this program: Certain LEAs, including charter schools authorized as LEAs under State law, as prescribed by section 6112(b) of the ESEA; certain schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education of the U.S. Department of the Interior (BIE), as prescribed by section 6113(d) of the ESEA; Indian tribes and IOs under certain conditions, as prescribed by section 6112(c) of the ESEA; and Indian community-based organizations (ICBOs), as prescribed by section 6112(d)(1) of the ESEA. Consortia of two or more LEAs, Indian tribes, IOs, and ICBOs are also eligible under certain circumstances, as prescribed by section 6112(a)(4) of the ESEA.

    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-supplant funding requirements. Section 6114(c)(1) of the ESEA requires an LEA to use these grant funds only to supplement the funds that, in the absence of these Federal funds, such agency would make available for services described in this application, and not to supplant such funds.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. How To Request an Application Package: You can obtain a login and password for the electronic application for grants under this program by contacting the EDFacts Partner Support Center (EDFacts PSC) listed under Agency Contacts in section VI of this notice.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the EDFacts PSC listed under Agency Contacts in section VI of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in EASIE.

    a. Changes for EASIE PART II for FY 2017 due to the ESEA reauthorization:

    (i) Meaningful collaboration with tribes. In the application, each LEA applicant will describe the process it used to meaningfully collaborate with Indian tribes located in the community in a timely, active, and ongoing manner in the development of the comprehensive program, and the actions taken as a result of such collaboration (ESEA section 6114(b)(7)).

    (ii) Grant objectives. Three allowable activities have been added under the program, and one allowable activity has been removed. The new allowable activities are: Activities that support Native American language programs, which may be taught by traditional leaders; dropout prevention strategies; and strategies to meet the education needs of at-risk Indian youth in correctional facilities, or in transition from such facilities. The removed activity is: Incorporating Indian-specific content into the LEA curriculum (ESEA section 6115(b)).

    (iii) Schoolwide applicant's objectives and use of funds. An LEA that selects a schoolwide application will identify in its application how the use of such funds in a schoolwide program will produce benefits to Indian students that would not be achieved if the funds were not used in a schoolwide program (ESEA section 6115(c)(3)).

    (iv) Budget limitation on the use of funds. Funds may not be used for long-distance travel expenses for training activities that are available locally or regionally (ESEA section 6115(e)).

    (v) Parent Committee Approval (PCA) form. The PCA form has been updated to reflect the changes to the composition of the parent committee. Signers of the PCA form can include parents and family members of Indian children in the LEA's schools; representatives of Indian tribes; teachers in the schools; and, if applicable, Indian students attending secondary schools of the agency. The majority of the parent committee must be parents and family members of Indian children (ESEA section 6114(c)(4)).

    b. Supplementary Documentation: For an applicant that is an LEA or consortia of LEAs, the EASIE application requires the electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) submission of the PCA form no later than the deadline for transmittal of EASIE Part II, which is June 15, 2017. The required form is available in EASIE.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Part II of the Formula Grant EASIE Applications Available: May 17, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Part II Applications: June 15, 2017, 8:00:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.

    Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using EASIE. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirements, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VI of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

    5. Funding Restrictions: Not more than 5 percent of the funds provided to a grantee may be used for administrative costs (ESEA section 6115(d)). We reference regulations outlining other funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications

    Applications for grants under the Formula Grants program, CFDA number 84.060A, must be submitted electronically using the EASIE application located in the EDFacts System Portal at https://eden.ed.gov.

    Applications submitted in paper format will be rejected unless you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement described later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement, and follow the submission rules outlined therein.

    Electronic Application System for Indian Education (EASIE): EASIE is an easy-to-use, electronic application found in the EdFacts System Portal at https://eden.ed.gov. The EASIE application is divided into two parts.

    In Part I, applicants submit their Indian student count and select the application time span.

    In Part II, all applicants must—

    (1) Select the type of program being submitted as either regular formula grant program, formula grant project consolidated with a title I schoolwide program, or integration of services under section 6116 of the ESEA;

    (2) Select the grade levels offered by the LEA or BIE school district;

    (3) Identify, from a list of possible Department grant programs (e.g., ESEA title I), the programs in the LEA that are currently coordinated with a title VI project, or with which the school district plans to coordinate during the project year, in accordance with section 6114(c)(5) of the ESEA and describe the coordination of services for AI/AN students with those grant programs;

    (4) Identify specific project objectives that will further the goal of providing culturally responsive education for AI/AN students to meet their academic needs and help them meet State achievement standards, and identify the data sources that will be used to measure progress towards meeting project objectives and on which grantees will report in the annual performance report after the grant year closes;

    (5) Describe the professional development opportunities that will be provided as part of your coordination of services to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children, and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted by this grant have been properly trained to carry out such programs;

    (6) Provide information on how the State assessment data of all Indian students (not just those served) are used. Indicate how you plan to disseminate information to the Indian community, parent committee, and Indian tribes whose children are served by the LEA and how assessment data from the previous school year were used, as required by section 6114(6)(C) of the ESEA;

    (7) Indicate when a public hearing was held for FY 2017;

    (8) For LEA applicants or a consortium of LEAs, describe the process the LEA(s) used to meaningfully collaborate with Indian tribes located in the community in a timely, active, and ongoing manner in the development of the comprehensive program and the actions taken as a result of such collaboration;

    (9) Identify your specific project objectives towards the goal of providing culturally responsive education for AI/AN students to meet their academic needs and help them meet State achievement standards;

    (10) For an LEA that selects a schoolwide application, identify in its application how the use of such funds in a schoolwide program will produce benefits to Indian students that would not be achieved if the funds were not used in a schoolwide program; and

    (11) Submit a program budget based on the estimated grant amount that the EASIE system calculates from the Indian student count you submitted in EASIE Part I. After the initial grant amounts are determined, additional funds may become available due to such circumstances as withdrawn applications or reduction in an applicant's student count. An applicant whose award amount increases or decreases more than $5,000 must submit a revised budget prior to receiving its grant award but will not need to re-certify its application. For an applicant that receives an increase or decrease in its award of less than $5,000, there will be no need for further action. For an applicant that receives an increased award amount following submission of its original budget, the applicant must allocate the increased amount only to previously approved budget categories.

    Note:

    Applicants in designing their projects and preparing their required General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) section 427 assurance, will need to address barriers to participation for individuals, including individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency, and must consider the steps they will take to ensure equitable participation of all children and families in the project, in compliance with civil rights obligations. (Section 427 requires each applicant to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs.)

    Registration for Formula Grant EASIE: Applicants must be registered for Formula Grant EASIE before the Part I application deadline date. The Part I application deadline date for FY 2017 is April 28, 2017.

    Certification for Formula Grant EASIE: The applicant's authorized representative, who must be authorized by the applicant to legally bind the applicant, must certify Part II. Only users with the role type “managing user” or “certifying official user” in the EASIE system can certify an application. Your project's contact information should contain at least three system users with valid email addresses for the project director and authorized representative or another party designated to answer questions in the event the project director is unavailable. The certification process ensures that the information in the application is true, reliable, and valid. An applicant that provides a false statement in the application is subject to penalties under the False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the EASIE system because--

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload documents to the EASIE system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date for Part I (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the Part I application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the Part I application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Bernard Garcia, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202-6335. FAX: (202) 205-0606.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline dates for both Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202-6335.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date for Part I or Part II.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline dates for both Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: CFDA Number 84.060A, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202-6335.

    The program office accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the program under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The program office will mail you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should contact the program office at (202) 260-3774.

    V. Grant Administration Information

    1. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of a grant in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this program, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) You must submit a performance report using the EDFacts System Portal at https://eden.ed.gov, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary, within 90 days after the close of the grant year. The performance report is located within the EDFacts System Portal as Part III.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: The Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Formula Grants program: (1) The percentage of AI/AN students in grades four and eight who score at or above the basic level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); (2) the percentage of AI/AN students in grades four and eight who score at or above the basic level in mathematics on the NAEP; (3) the percentage of AI/AN students in grades three through eight meeting State achievement standards by scoring at or above the proficient level in reading and mathematics on State assessments; (4) the difference between the percentage of AI/AN students in grades three through eight at or above the proficient level in reading and mathematics on State assessments and the percentage of all students scoring at those levels; (5) the percentage of AI/AN students who graduate from high school as measured by the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and (6) the percentage of funds used by grantees prior to award close-out.

    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you receive an award under this grant program that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Agency Contacts FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about the Formula Grants program, contact Bernard Garcia, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W115, Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 260-1454 or by email: [email protected] For questions about the EASIE application and uploading documentation, contact the EDFacts PSC, telephone: 877-457-3336 (877-HLP-EDEN) or by email at: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the EDFacts PSC, toll free, at 1-888-403-3336 (888-403-EDEN).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the EDFacts PSC listed under Agency Contacts in section VI of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Monique M. Chism, Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07732 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of arbitration decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on June 11, 2015, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in the matter of Maryland Department of Education v. General Services Administration (Case no. R-S/13-06).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You may obtain a copy of the full text of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), the State Licensing Agency (SLA) designated to administer the Randolph-Sheppard program in Maryland. Under 20 U.S.C. 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    Background

    The complainant, MSDE, filed a grievance against the respondent, the General Services Administration (GSA), challenging the award of a contract for cafeteria service. The Panel decided the case on motions for summary judgment. The chair and one member sustained the grievance, and one member dissented.

    The issue before the Panel was whether GSA violated the Act when it awarded the contract for operation of cafeteria services to a bidder other than the SLA and, if so, what was the appropriate remedy.

    MSDE argued that GSA violated the Act by awarding a contract for cafeteria service at the Social Security Administration's cafeteria in Baltimore, Maryland, to a private entity without establishing a competitive range to carry out the Act's requirement that priority be given to blind vendors. The SLA had submitted a proposal in partnership with a blind vendor.

    GSA took the position that it was not required to establish a competitive range and that the SLA had confused the requirements of the solicitation, the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the Act. Specifically, GSA argued that, while the FAR requires a competitive range only if discussions are held, the solicitation provided that GSA could make an award without discussion. GSA further argued that when there is a single offer that clearly exceeds all others and merits direct award, it can make an award to that offeror without creating a competitive range.

    Synopsis of the Panel Decision

    At the MSDE's request, the Panel was convened on June 11, 2015. The Panel concluded that GSA violated the Act by failing to establish a competitive range. The Panel recognized that Congress established the Act's priority requirement to enhance economic opportunity for the blind. When a Federal agency solicits services, it is required to invite the SLA to bid on the contract. If the SLA's proposal falls within the competitive range and has been ranked among those with a reasonable chance of being selected, a Federal agency must give priority to the SLA's proposal.

    GSA acknowledged that a competitive range was not established and that it awarded the contract based on its determination that the private company's proposal merited a direct award, but the failure to create a competitive range constituted a violation of the Act. (Southfork Sys. v. United States, 141 F. 3d 1124 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Kentucky v. United States, 2014 WL 7375566 (W.D. Ky. Dec.29, 2014).

    Having found that GSA violated the Act, the Panel next considered the issue of remedy. The Panel recognized that, while it had no authority to impose a specific remedy, the Act requires the head of the agency, subject to appeal, to take such action as may be necessary to carry out the Panel's decision.

    The Panel recommended that GSA give (1) notice of the Panel's decision to the current contractor and (2) notice that the contract would terminate within a specified period. The Panel also recommended that GSA enter into direct negotiations with the SLA. If the GSA declined to enter into such negotiations, the Panel recommended that GSA issue a new solicitation, with a competitive range.

    The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07731 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of arbitration decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on March 17, 2011, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in Bernard Werwie, Jr. v. Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (Case no. R-S/07-16).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You may obtain a copy of the full text of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after receiving a complaint from the complainant, Bernard Werwie, Jr., a licensed blind operator of a vending facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    Background

    The complainant, Bernard Werwie, Jr., was a licensed blind operator of a vending facility in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. His dispute with the respondent, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (PA OVR), arose out of the termination of his participation in the Business Enterprises Program by the PA OVR effective December 31, 2006.

    Pursuant to the Act, Mr. Werwie sought a hearing of his claims against the PA OVR. On July 7, 2008, a hearing officer dismissed his appeal and denied his request for damages and attorney's fees. The PA OVR adopted the hearing officer's decision as its final agency action.

    Mr. Werwie then requested the convening of the Panel. The Panel chair moved to schedule a hearing for that summer. There were no acceptable hearing dates available in the summer, so the Panel chair circulated a list of proposed dates in late 2009.

    The hearing was not held in 2009 because, in July, Mr. Werwie discharged the attorneys he had engaged to handle the case. The Panel granted him until January 2010 to find new counsel.

    Despite being granted an extension to name a new representative by January of 2010, Mr. Werwie did not respond until February 25. In his response, he indicated that he was still looking for new counsel and asked that the case be held in abeyance until September 2010 or until further notice. The PA OVR objected to this request for delay, and, on March 29, 2010, the Panel gave Mr. Werwie until May 3, 2010, to find new counsel.

    Mr. Werwie never responded with the name of a new representative as requested by that deadline. Accordingly, the Panel chair informed him that, if he intended to proceed with his case against the PA OVR, he had to respond by June 10, 2010.

    On July 1, 2010, the PA OVR filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Werwie's claims for failure to prosecute. Counsel for the PA OVR served Mr. Werwie a copy of this motion and supporting brief by sending them by First Class Mail to his Fredericksburg, Virginia, address.

    On July 18, 2010, the RSA informed the Panel chair of an email received from Mr. Werwie asking about the status of his case. In it, he alleged that he had heard nothing about the case since early March. This message was from email and postal mail addresses different from those he had used in his prior correspondence. The New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, address that he listed in his July 18 communication was identified as his father's address.

    The Panel responded to Mr. Werwie on August 9, 2010. It asked him for confirmation that he was ready to proceed with the case and instructed him to inform it of the name and contact information of his new counsel on or before August 29, 2010. The Panel indicated that, if it could not schedule a hearing, it would then proceed with the PA OVR's motion to dismiss the complaint.

    On August 18, Mr. Werwie notified the Panel that his representatives were the same attorneys whom he fired on July 22, 2009. The Panel then asked the attorneys to confirm that they represented Mr. Werwie and proposed a conference call to be held on September 2, 2010.

    On August 30, one of the attorneys, Mr. Leiterman, responded by email that Mr. Werwie asked him and his colleague to represent him in this case. Mr. Leiterman continued that they had “agreed in principle,” and they expected the letter of representation to be signed in the next week. However, in the two weeks that followed, the Panel did not hear from either attorney.

    On September 17, 2010, the Panel sent Mr. Werwie a letter indicating that it would grant the PA OVR's motion to dismiss if Mr. Werwie did not respond by November 1, 2010. Neither Mr. Werwie nor his attorneys responded to the motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2011, the Panel granted the PA OVR's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

    Synopsis of the Panel Decision

    The Panel reviewed the statutory language of the Act and the RSA's implementing regulations, policies, and procedures. The Panel concluded that it has the authority to grant a motion to dismiss in this case without first conducting a hearing. It also concluded that there were unusual circumstances present in this case, notably delays in the process due to the change of Mr. Werwie's lawyers. The Panel repeatedly warned Mr. Werwie that his failure to move the case forward could result in dismissal and noted that he chose not to file a response at all although he was given ample time to do so. Because of these circumstances, the Panel decided that granting the PA OVR's motion to dismiss for Mr. Werwie's failure to prosecute was an appropriate exercise of its discretion.

    The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07727 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of arbitration decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on May 30, 2012, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in the matter of the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Business Enterprise Program v. the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force (Case no. R-S/10-06).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You may obtain a copy of the full text of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5028, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Business Enterprise Program. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    Background

    This is an arbitration between the Colorado Department of Human Services and the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, pursuant to the Act.

    From October 1, 2006 through March 31, 2011, Don Hudson, a blind vendor licensed by the complainant, the Colorado Department of Human Services (CO DHS), Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Business Enterprise Program, operated the High Country Inn, a food service operation located at the United States Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs, Colorado. In 2010, the respondent, the United States Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force (Air Force), published a competitive bidding announcement for the operation of the High Country Inn. The Air Force included in its solicitation for this contract a requirement that only those offerors whose price was within 5 percent of the lowest offeror's price would be considered for award of the contract.

    The CO DHS's bid was in excess of this 5 percent competitive range and, accordingly, the CO DHS was eliminated from competition for the contract. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder.

    The CO DHS filed a complaint with the United States Secretary of Education pursuant to the Act and its regulations. The CO DHS claimed that the 5 percent competitive range was set at such a low figure that it eliminated the priority to be afforded to blind vendors under the Act and its regulations. It also asserted that the Air Force misled it into thinking it had the lowest bid and, therefore, the CO DHS did not reduce its price when it had the opportunity to revise its bid in response to an amendment to the solicitation. In addition, it claimed that the Air Force should have conducted direct negotiations with the blind vendor rather than using a competitive process.

    The CO DHS also claimed that the Air Force violated 34 CFR 395.20(b) because the 5 percent competitive range was a limitation that the Air Force did not justify in writing to the Secretary of Education. Finally, the CO DHS asserted that the 5 percent competitive range was unlawful because it was based on the August 29, 2006, Joint Report to Congress, which required the setting of this competitive range but had not yet been implemented.

    Synopsis of the Panel Decision

    The Panel held, with one member dissenting, that the CO DHS had waived its claim that the 5 percent competitive range on its face violated the Act because the CO DHS failed to protest the competitive range at the time the Air Force issued the solicitation. The Air Force had the discretion to set a competitive range at this level.

    The Panel also held that the CO DHS waived its claim that the 5 percent limitation was a limitation on the operation of a vending facility because it failed to raise it at the time the Air Force issued the solicitation.

    The Panel further held that the Joint Report was not effective because regulations implementing that report had never been promulgated and the 5 percent competitive range set by the Air Force was not based on the Joint Report. The Panel held that, instead, the competitive range was the product of the Air Force's need to keep down its costs and emphasize the importance of price to bidders.

    In addition, the Panel held that the Air Force was not required to conduct discussions with the CO DHS because the Act permits, but does not require, such discussions. In addition, the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) does not require discussions with bidders. The Panel held that, even if the FAR did require discussions, a violation of the FAR cannot be the subject of arbitration under the Act.

    The Panel held that such a claim did not involve an alleged violation of the Act and, therefore, could not be brought in arbitration. The Panel also determined that the claim that the Air Force misled the CO DHS into thinking it had the lowest bid did not involve an alleged violation of the Act and, therefore, could not be brought in arbitration. Under the facts of this case, the Panel determined that the CO DHS could not reasonably claim prejudice because of an allegedly misleading statement by the Air Force.

    The Panel concluded, with one member dissenting, that the Air Force violated the Act's regulations when it failed to consult with the Secretary of Education during this solicitation. Even though the Air Force determined that the CO DHS's bid was not within the 5 percent competitive range, the Panel held that 34 CFR 395.33(a) required the Air Force to consult with the Secretary of Education in order to determine whether the blind vendor was entitled to a priority in the solicitation pursuant to that regulatory provision. The Panel directed that, if the Secretary of Education determines after consultation with the Air Force that the CO DHS should be afforded a priority pursuant to 34 CFR 395.33(a), the Air Force will be required to initiate a new acquisition in compliance with 34 CFR 395.33.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07728 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of arbitration decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on October 7, 2012, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in Rutherford Beard v. the Michigan Commission for the Blind (Case no. R-S/09-01).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You may obtain a copy of the full text of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(a), after receiving a complaint from Rutherford Beard, a licensed blind operator of a vending facility at the Joint Forces Training Center. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each Panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    Background

    The complainant, Rutherford Beard, is a food vendor in the respondent's, the Michigan Commission for the Blind's (Commission), business enterprise program (BEP). On May 1, 2008, Mr. Beard signed a vending facility agreement to operate a cafeteria at the Joint Forces Training Center. He was provided with initial inventory and equipment, and the cafeteria began to sell food. This facility was projected to generate $150,000 in annual sales with an 11 percent profit. The facility did not generate the expected sales and ultimately Mr. Beard had to lay off two employees. As a result, his staff was reduced to himself and a part-time employee.

    Because the facility was not generating any profit, Mr. Beard asked for a profit percentage exception after six months. He explained that, if a vendor does not meet the expected profit margin and does not get an exception, he is not eligible to bid on a different facility. Mr. Beard testified that he “tried everything,” including opening on some weekends and opening for breakfast, but he did not generate a profit. After Mr. Beard attempted to transfer to another location, the Commission informed him that he had to remain for at least a year according to the BEP rules. The cafeteria was then closed.

    In his appeal, Mr. Beard claimed that he did not get sufficient help from the BEP and was not allowed to transfer out after six months. He also asserted that there were vending machines in different buildings on the same grounds that could have been awarded to him to lessen the adverse financial effect of the lack of business. That solution was also denied. Mr. Beard also contended that because the initial projection for sales at this cafeteria was miscalculated, and because he was not allowed to transfer after six months, the Commission should reimburse him for his losses.

    In response, the Commission asserted that, under its rules, there is no guarantee that a vendor will make a profit. It also pointed out that Mr. Beard did not exercise the procedural rights granted by the Act and the Commission's rules.

    Summary of Panel Decision

    At Mr. Beard's request, the Panel was convened on October 7, 2012. The Panel concluded that the Commission did not have the authority to grant Mr. Beard's requested relief. One Panel member asserted that section 107b(3) of the Act authorizes the Commission to provide licensed vendors with a fair minimum return when circumstances warrant it. Another Panel member indicated that this section is not mandatory language and that the Commission's rules do not provide for remuneration. The Panel chair stated that the Commission ought to adopt a rule to provide some remuneration for situations like this. However, absent any rule in place, the Panel decided that there was insufficient justification for any remuneration and, therefore, remuneration was not appropriate in this case.

    The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07730 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Application Deadline for Fiscal Year 2017; Small, Rural School Achievement Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.358A, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) awards grants on a formula basis to eligible local educational agencies (LEAs) to address the unique needs of rural school districts. In this notice, we establish the deadline and describe the submission procedures for fiscal year (FY) 2017 SRSA grant applications.

    All LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA funds must submit an application electronically via Grants.gov by the deadline in this notice.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: May 1, 2017.

    Application Deadline: June 30, 2017 by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E-210, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-7349 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Award Information

    Type of Award: Formula grant.

    Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide, on an annualized basis, $87,752,864 for this program. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $0-$60,000.

    Note:

    Depending on the number of eligible LEAs identified in a given year and the amount appropriated by Congress for the program, some eligible LEAs may receive an SRSA allocation of $0 under the statutory funding formula.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 4,300.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    II. Program Authority and Eligibility Information Under what statutory authority will FY 2017 SRSA grant awards be made?

    The FY 2017 SRSA grant awards will be made under the statutory authority in title V, part B, subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (Pub. Law 114-95).

    Which LEAs are eligible for an award under the SRSA program?

    For FY 2017, an LEA (including a public charter school that is considered an LEA under State law) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if it meets one of the following criteria:

    (a)(1) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600; or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

    (2) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

    (b) The LEA is a member of an educational service agency (ESA) that does not receive SRSA funds, and the LEA meets the eligibility requirements described in (a)(1) and (2) above.

    (c) The LEA meets the requirements for a hold harmless award as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. These are LEAs that are no longer eligible for the SRSA program because of amendments made under the ESSA to the locale code designations referenced in section 5211(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. However, these LEAs may receive a FY 2017 award at a reduced rate as described in section 5212(b)(4) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

    Note:

    A new “Choice of Participation” provision under section 5225 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, gives LEAs eligible for both SRSA and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under title V, part B, subpart 2 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, the option to participate in either the SRSA program or the RLIS program. LEAs eligible for both SRSA and RLIS are referred to as “dual-eligible LEAs”.

    Note:

    Section 5211(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, establishes a new locale code methodology for purposes of the SRSA program. Beginning in FY 2017, the NCES school locale codes for SRSA program eligibility will be determined using the “urban-centric” NCES school locale code methodology, instead of the previous “metro-centric” methodology referenced under section 6211(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

    Which eligible LEAs must submit an application to receive an FY 2017 SRSA grant award?

    Under the regulations in 34 CFR 75.104(a), the Secretary makes a grant only to an eligible party that submits an application.

    Beginning in FY 2017, all LEAs eligible to receive an SRSA award are required to submit an SRSA application annually in order to receive SRSA funds, regardless of whether the LEA received an award in prior years. This new annual application will require only minimal time of grantees but will help the Department improve SRSA program operations, by informing grantees earlier in the year of their eligibility for the SRSA program, confirming an LEA's intent to make use of SRSA funding, maintaining updated and accurate grantee contact information, and ensuring grantees are able to draw down grant funds immediately upon receipt of their grant award. All eligible LEAs must submit an annual application, including LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2017 award under the hold harmless provision, dual-eligible LEAs that choose to participate in the SRSA program instead of the RLIS program, and SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of ESAs that do not receive SRSA funds. In the case of SRSA-eligible LEAs that are members of SRSA-eligible ESAs, the respective LEAs and ESAs must coordinate directly with each other to determine which entity will submit an SRSA application, as both entities may not apply for or receive SRSA funds. Additionally, we note that dual-eligible LEAs that apply for SRSA funds in accordance with these application submission procedures will not be considered for an RLIS award.

    We intend to provide, by April 14, 2017 a list of LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA grant funds on the Department's Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligibility.html. All LEAs on this list will need to submit an electronic application via Grants.gov in order to receive an FY 2017 SRSA grant award. The list will identify those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the SRSA program, those LEAs that meet the eligibility requirements for the RLIS program, those LEAs that are dual eligible, and those LEAs that are eligible to receive an SRSA award pursuant to the hold harmless provision.

    If an LEA on the Department's list of LEAs eligible to receive an FY 2017 SRSA award is no longer in existence as of the 2016-17 school year or will close prior to the 2017-2018 school year, the LEA is no longer eligible to receive an FY 2017 SRSA award and should not apply.

    An LEA eligible to receive FY 2017 SRSA funds that fails to submit an FY 2017 SRSA application or fails to submit an application in accordance with the application submission procedures is at risk of not receiving an FY 2017 SRSA award. Such LEAs may receive an award only to the extent funds become available after awards are made to all eligible LEAs that complied with the application procedures.

    How must LEAs eligible for an FY 2017 SRSA grant award submit an application?

    The Department has revised the application LEAs must submit to receive FY 2017 SRSA funds. In addition, the Department has changed which system LEAs must use for submitting SRSA applications. LEAs should review closely the next section titled Application and Submission Information for specific information about how to apply for SRSA FY 2017 funds.

    III. Application and Submission Information Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management

    To do business with the Department of Education, you must:

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, throughout the grant performance period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take as little as seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your SRSA application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications Using Grants.gov:

    All LEAs eligible for FY 2017 SRSA grant funds are required to submit an electronic application using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov by June 30, 2017 by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time. SRSA applications must be submitted electronically using Grants.gov unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement, in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    Through the Grants.gov Web site, you will be able to download a copy of the SRSA application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    Please note the following:

    • Applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will be posted using Adobe forms. Therefore, applicants will need to download a compatible version of Adobe Reader software to complete the electronic SRSA application using Grants.gov. For your convenience, a compatible version of Adobe Reader is available for free download at www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/adobe-software-compatibility.html.

    • When you search for the downloadable electronic application package for the SRSA grant program in Grants.gov, you must search for the package by the CFDA number (84.358). Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.358, not 84.358A).

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June, 30, 2017. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June 30, 2017. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on June 30, 2017.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this program to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants/gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload all documents for your application as files in a read-only flattened Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    • Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    • These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System

    If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application by the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement

    You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because--

    • You do not have access to the internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;

    and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or email a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail your statement to: Mr. Eric Schulz, U.S. Department of Education, Room 3E-210, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202.

    Or email your statement to: [email protected]

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail:

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery:

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.358A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the program under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    IV. Acessibility Information Accessible Format

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document

    The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Program Authority: Sections 5211-12 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Monique M. Chism, Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07724 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Arbitration Panel Decision Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice of arbitration decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education (Department) gives notice that, on January 11, 2012, an arbitration panel (the Panel) rendered a decision in Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitative Services v. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (Case no. R-S/10-02).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    You may obtain a copy of the full text of the Panel decision from Donald Brinson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5045, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-7310. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Panel was convened by the Department under the Randolph-Sheppard Act (Act), 20 U.S.C. 107d-1(b), after receiving a complaint from the Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitative Services. Under section 107d-2(c) of the Act, the Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a synopsis of each arbitration panel decision affecting the administration of vending facilities on Federal and other property.

    Background

    The complainant, the Illinois Department of Human Services (IL DHS) Division of Rehabilitative Services, alleged that the respondent, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), violated the Act when it rescinded a permit authorizing the Business Enterprise Program for the Blind (BEPB) to operate vending machines at the FAA facility in Elgin, Illinois. The BEPB is responsible for administering the Act in the State.

    Specifically, on January 4, 2006, the FAA negotiated and signed a permit authorizing BEPB to operate vending machines at the Elgin facility. Both parties agreed the facility was a satisfactory site for a vending facility under applicable regulations. On July 31, 2006, BEPB wrote the FAA asking when vending services would be implemented. On December 20, 2006, the FAA responded that there had been a change in the requirements for service and that it had awarded a contract to another vendor.

    Communication between BEPB and the FAA ceased from December 20, 2006, until September 2, 2008, when the BEPB program administrator, Raven Pulliam, wrote to Lois Flick at the FAA concerning the permit and requesting a date for installation of vending equipment. Hearing nothing, Pulliam wrote to the administrator of the FAA's regional office on September 21, 2010. On October 27, 2010, a representative from the regional office responded that the FAA was going to terminate the permit, specifying that the FAA's requirements for food service had changed. On November 18, 2010, the IL DHS filed a complaint and a request for a Federal arbitration with the Secretary of Education.

    IL DHS alleged that the FAA unlawfully: (1) Voided and withdrew an irrevocable agreement; (2) identified the Elgin facility as a “satisfactory site” for a vending facility but did not offer priority to blind vendors to operate such services; and (3) continued to violate the permit by refusing to allow a blind vendor to operate at the Elgin facility since January 2006.

    IL DHS requested that the Panel grant the following relief: (1) 50 percent of all income from vending machines currently in operation at the Elgin facility; and (2) prejudgment interest and interest from the date of award until paid.

    The FAA raised the affirmative defense that that the Act was not applicable because the Elgin facility did not meet the minimum requirements of a “satisfactory site.” The FAA also argued that: (1) The operation of a blind vending facility would adversely affect the interests of the United States; (2) the permit was not an agreement or a contract but an authorization of the provision of vending services that could be terminated with 30-days' notice; and (3) BEPB did not raise issues or contest the termination when it was notified of the FAA's intention to contract for services in December 2006 (the laches defense).

    In response, IL DHS stated that BEPB entered into a contractual agreement with the FAA, which could not be unilaterally revoked. It also argued there was no Secretarial determination that the placement or operation of the vending facility under the permit would be adverse to the interest of the United States and that, by signing the permit, both parties agreed that the Elgin facility met the minimum criteria identified as a “satisfactory site” for a vending facility. IL DHS contended that the laches defense is not applicable and that the applicable State statute of limitations for bringing a contract action is 10 years.

    The FAA claimed the laches defense should still apply, stating that an opportunity to exercise one of the Act's exemptions would have been made possible if it had been aware of the BEPB's position earlier.

    Synopsis of the Panel Decision

    The Panel convened a status conference by telephone on November 11, 2011, and the chair issued a pretrial order requiring both parties to submit stipulated facts and exhibits by November 30, 2011. The Panel concluded that an evidentiary hearing would not be necessary. A hearing was held by telephone conference on January 11, 2012.

    The Panel unanimously determined that, when the FAA and the BEPB came to a contractual agreement for the operation of vending machines at the Elgin facility, the FAA obligated itself under the Act. Furthermore, the Panel determined that the FAA forfeited any statutory exemptions given that its signature on the permit removed any claim of insufficient space, minimum level of vending machine income, or the configuration of the facility's space. Therefore, the Panel determined that the FAA was liable to the IL DHS.

    Although the Panel determined that laches did not apply, it also found that the BEPB would be unjustly enriched were the Panel to award the BEPB damages for the 20-month gap in which it failed to contact the FAA. On this basis, the Panel awarded the BEPB a total of $4,320.00 as the amount of the FAA's liability through March 2012. The computation was based upon a reasonable estimate of 50 percent of net income from vending machine operations, or $80 per month, multiplied by 54 months. The Panel also determined that BEPB was not entitled to pre-judgment interest.

    The Panel found that the permit should remain in place and stated that it hoped that the parties would negotiate, without any more delay, on establishing a vending facility on the Elgin facility. The Panel also retained jurisdiction in this matter to ensure that its decision would be adhered to.

    The views and opinions expressed by the Panel do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of the Department.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07729 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [Certification Notice—246] Notice of Filing of Self-Certification of Coal Capability Under the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act AGENCY:

    Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Filing.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 30, 2017, Carroll County Energy, LLC, as owner and operator of a new baseload electric generating powerplant, submitted a coal capability self-certification to the Department of Energy (DOE) pursuant to the Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978 (FUA), as amended, and DOE regulations. The FUA and regulations thereunder require DOE to publish a notice of filing of self-certification in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of coal capability self-certification filings are available for public inspection, upon request, in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Mail Code OE-20, Room 8G-024, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Lawrence at (202) 586-5260.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title II of FUA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), provides that no new base load electric powerplant may be constructed or operated without the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy source. Pursuant to the FUA, in order to meet the requirement of coal capability, the owner or operator of such a facility proposing to use natural gas or petroleum as its primary energy source shall certify to the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) prior to construction, or prior to operation as a base load electric powerplant, that such powerplant has the capability to use coal or another alternate fuel. Such certification establishes compliance with FUA section 201(a) as of the date it is filed with the Secretary. 42 U.S.C. 8311.

    The following owner of a proposed new baseload electric generating powerplant has filed a self-certification of coal-capability with DOE pursuant to FUA section 201(d) and in accordance with DOE regulations in 10 CFR 501.60, 61:

    Owner: Carroll County Energy, LLC.

    Capacity: 672 megawatts (MW).

    Plant Location: Carrollton, OH 44616.

    In-Service Date: December 1, 2017.

    Issued in Washington, DC on April 11, 2017. Brian Mills, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07703 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-96-000.

    Applicants: Santa Rita Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Santa Rita Wind Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170407-5260.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1530-000.

    Applicants: BIF III Holtwood LLC.

    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report BIF III Holtwood to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5196.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1025-002.

    Applicants: Cedar Point Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Recollation Amendment Title Page and Header Revisions to be effective 2/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1026-002.

    Applicants: Silver State Solar Power North, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: SSN Recollation Amendment Title Page and Header to be effective 2/24/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1394-000.

    Applicants: 83WI 8me, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: 83WI 8me Initial MBR Application and Request for Expedited Consideration to be effective 5/19/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170407-5261.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1395-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service Agreement No. 4320, Queue No. AA1-109 to be effective 12/3/2015.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1396-000.

    Applicants: MATL LLP.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: MATL Table of Contents Revisions to be effective 4/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1397-000.

    Applicants: MATL LLP.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: MATL ColumbiaGrid Agreement Cancellation to be effective 4/11/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1398-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: SA 807—LGIA with Buffalo Trail Wind Farm LLC to be effective 6/10/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5195.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1399-000.

    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company, ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended Operating and Transmission Agreement Exhibits and Appendices to be effective 6/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1400-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Joint Use Pole and Facility Construction Agreement to be effective 6/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5198.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1401-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSC-PRPA-414-0.0.0 to be effective 4/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5203.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES17-16-000.

    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Description: Application pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Power Act of MDU Resources Group, Inc.

    Filed Date: 4/7/17.

    Accession Number: 20170407-5306.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07691 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-116-000] Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on March 30, 2017, Northern Natural Gas Company. (“Northern”), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed a prior notice application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.210 and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000. Northern requests authorization to: (1) Construct and operate two mainline pipeline extension segments totaling approximately 2.25 miles of its existing 30-inch and 36-inch-diameter pipelines and (2) abandon short segments of pipeline, all located in Dakota County, Minnesota, and Worth County, Iowa, all as more fully set forth in the request, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The proposed project is referred to as the Ventura North A-line Capacity Replacement Project (Project). The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Specifically Northern proposes to: (1) Construct 1.24-mile extension of Northern's existing 30-inch-diameter D-line located in Sections 16, 21 and 22, Township 112 North, Range 20 West, Greenvale Township, Dakota County, Minnesota; (2) construct 1.01-mile extension of Northern's 36-inch-diameter E-line located in Sections 9 and 16, Township 100 North, Range 22 West, Silver Lake Township, Worth County, Iowa; (3) remove approximately 10 feet of 16-inch-diameter pipe; (4) remove approximately 80 feet of 30-inch-diameter pipe from the D-line in Dakota County, Minnesota; (5) remove approximately 10 feet of 12-inch-diameter pipe and (6) remove approximately 20 feet of 24-inch-diameter pipe from the E-line in Worth County, Iowa.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Dari R. Dornan Senior Counsel, Northern Natural Gas Company, P.O. Box 3330, Omaha, Nebraska 68103-0330 or phone (402) 398-7077, or by email at [email protected]

    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenter will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

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

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07694 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1392-000] El Cabo Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of El Cabo Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 1, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07696 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1394-000] 83WI 8me, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 83WI 8me, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 1, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07687 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Staff Attendance at the Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity Trustee, Regional State Committee, Members' Committee and Board of Directors' Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that members of its staff may attend the meetings of the Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Regional State Committee (RSC), Regional Entity Trustee (RET), Members' Committee and Board of Directors as noted below. Their attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

    The SPP RSC meeting will be held in DFW Hyatt Regency, 2334 North International Parkway, DFW Airport, Texas 75261. The phone number is (972) 453-1234. The SPP RET meeting and the SPP Members/Board of Directors meetings will be held at the Doubletree Warren Place, 6110 S. Yale Avenue Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136-1904. The phone number is (918) 495-1000. All meetings are Central Time.

    SPP RSC April 17, 2017 (1:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) SPP RET April 24, 2017 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.) SPP Members/Board of Directors April 25, 2017 (8:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.)

    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following proceedings:

    Docket No. ER15-2028, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2115, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER15-2324, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL16-91, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL16-108, Tilton Energy v. Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Docket No. EL16-110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-204, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-209, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-791, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-829, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-1341, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-1546, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2522, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER16-2523, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. EL17-11, Alabama Power Co. Docket No. EL17-21, Kansas Electric Co. Docket No. EL17-29, American Municipal Power Docket No. ER17-253, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-264, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-358, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-426, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-428, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-772, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-889, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-969, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-973, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-976, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1024, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1092, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1098, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1107, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1110, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1140, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1309, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1319, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. Docket No. ER17-1371, Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.

    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-5937 or [email protected]

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07688 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 9784-003] Neshkoro Power Associates, LLC; Renaissance Hydro Associates; Wisconsin8, LLC; Notice of Transfer of Exemption

    1. By letter filed March 9, 2017 and supplemented on March 21, 2017, Wisconsin8, LLC informed the Commission that the exemption from licensing for the Manawa Dam Project No. 9784, originally issued June 30, 1988 1 has been transferred to the Wisconsin8, LLC. The project is located on the Little Wolf River in Waupaca County, Wisconsin. The transfer of an exemption does not require Commission approval.

    1 Order Granting Exemption from Licensing (5 MW or Less). North American Hydro, Inc. and Renaissance Hydro Associates, 43 FERC ¶ 62,388 (1988).

    2. Wisconsin8 LLC is now the exemptee of the Manawa Dam Project No. 9784. All correspondence should be forwarded to: Mr. Dwight Bowler, Wisconsin8 LLC, c/o Black River Partners, LLC, 813 Jefferson Hill Road, Nassau, NY 12123.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07689 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-69-000.

    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation, Indiana Michigan Power Company.

    Description: Supplement (submitting Public Version) to January 26, 2017 Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the FPA of American Electric Power Service Corporation, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/21/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-102-000.

    Applicants: Spruce Generation, LLC, Armstrong Power, LLC, Troy Energy, LLC.

    Description: Joint Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for a Shortened Comment Period of Spruce Generation, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/6/17.

    Accession Number: 20170406-5793.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: EG17-97-000.

    Applicants: Caldwell County Solar LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Caldwell County Solar LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1162-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., MidAmerican Energy Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-04-10_Amendment to filing to revise MidAm Att O-27A Depreciation Rates to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/10/17.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/17/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1402-000.

    Applicants: Lively Grove Energy Partners, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of Market-Based Tariff to be effective 5/31/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5009.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1403-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PSC-PRPA-414-0.1.0-NOC to be effective 4/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1404-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Queue #AB1-126, First Revised Service Agreement No. 4633 to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1405-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-04-11_SA 2753 NSP-Red Pine Wind GIA (H081) to be effective 3/29/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1406-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PJM Transmission Owners submit revisions to Schedule 12-Assg. of Costs of TMEPs to be effective 12/31/9998.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1407-000.

    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Concurrence IPL Amended Exhibits and Attachments (2017) to be effective 6/9/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5218.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1408-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Lassen Municipal Utility District IA (RS 225) to be effective 2/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/11/17.

    Accession Number: 20170411-5224.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/17.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07692 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. CP17-117-000; CP17-118-000; PF16-6-000] Driftwood LNG LLC, Driftwood Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that, on March 31, 2017, Driftwood LNG, LLC (DWLNG), 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002, filed an application seeking authorization pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (“NGA”), and Parts 153 and 380 of the regulations of the Commission for the proposed Driftwood LNG Project located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Specifically, DWLNG requests authorization to construct and operate liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facilities, including five LNG plants, three LNG storage tanks, marine facilities and associated infrastructure and support facilities (Facility). In total, the Facility will produce up to 26 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of natural gas.

    Also take notice that, on March 31, 2017, Driftwood Pipeline, LLC (DWPL), 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002, filed an application, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations, requesting that the Commission grant a certificate of public convenience and necessity, and related approvals, authorizing DWPL to construct and operate, an approximately 96-mile interstate natural gas pipeline, compression and related facilities. The pipeline will be capable of transporting up to 4 Bcf/d of natural gas to the Facility, all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Patricia Outtrim, Driftwood LNG, LLC, 1201 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100, Houston, TX 77002, (832) 962-4000, [email protected]; or Lisa M. Tonery, Partner, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, N.Y. 10019-6142, (212) 506-3710, [email protected]

    On June 6, 2016 the Commission staff granted Driftwood's request to utilize the Pre-Filing Process and assigned Docket No. PF16-6-000 to staff activities involved in the Driftwood LNG Project. Now, as of the March 31, 2017 application, the Pre-Filing Process for this project has ended. From this time forward, this proceeding will be conducted in Docket Nos. CP17-117-000 and CP17-118-000, as noted in the caption of this Notice.

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for this proposal. The issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

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

    There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 2, 2017.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07695 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-645-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates—Colonial Gas to BBPC 793648 & 793650 to be effective 4/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/06/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170406-5296.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-646-000.

    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.

    Description: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—City of Lakeland—9198623 to be effective 4/7/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/06/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170406-5324.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-647-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Request for Waiver and Extensions of El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Filed Date: 04/06/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170406-5540.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 18, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-648-000.

    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.

    Description: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing 5-1-2017 to be effective 5/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/07/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170407-5197.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 19, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-649-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Neg Rate 2017-04-07 CP, BP to be effective 4/8/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/07/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170407-5208.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 19, 2017.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 10, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07711 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No., 14804-000] Control Technology, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 28, 2016, Control Technology, Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Blue Diamond Advanced Pumped Storage Project (Blue Diamond Project or project) to be located near Blue Diamond, Clark County, Nevada. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.

    The proposed project would be a closed-loop pumped storage project that would consist of the following: (1) A new upper reservoir with a maximum elevation of 4,810 feet above mean sea level (MSL), and a storage capacity of 4,900 acre-feet; (2) a new lower reservoir with a maximum elevation of 3,320 feet MSL, and a storage capacity of 4,900 acre-feet; (3) a 21-foot-diameter, 4,300-foot-long concrete and steel penstock; (4) a powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 200 feet by 100 feet and 150 feet high, and containing two vertical single-stage reversible Francis-type pump/turbine units with a total installed capacity of 450 megawatts; (5) a 132-kilovolt, 3.5-mile-long transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. The water used to initially fill the reservoirs and supplement evaporative losses will either be hauled or piped in from a yet-to-be-determined source. The proposed project would produce about 4,500 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy daily, and use about 5,600 MWh daily to pump water from the lower to the upper reservoir. The estimated annual generation of the Blue Diamond Project would be 1,170 gigawatt-hours.

    Applicant Contact: Mr. Rexford Wait, Control Technology, Inc., 2416 Cades Way, Vista, CA 92083; phone: (760) 599-0086.

    FERC Contact: Evan Williams; phone: (202) 502-8462.

    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-14804-000.

    More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-14804) in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07690 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1097-003.

    Applicants: KO Transmission Company.

    Description: KO Transmission Company submits tariff filing per 385.602: KO Transmission Rate Case Settlement Filing to be effective 4/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/10/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5256.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-553-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.205(a): Withdraw—GT&C Section 46—Failure of Electronic Equipment.

    Filed Date: 04/10/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170410-5200.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 24, 2017.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07693 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-XXXX] Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before May 17, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

    Title: Commercial and Public Safety Interference Complaint Intake Form, FCC-5624.

    Form Number: FCC-5624.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, federal government, and state, local, or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,000 respondents; 1,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours (30 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 155, and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. However, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of Rules.

    Needs and Uses: Commercial spectrum licensees, spectrum licensees with public safety or safety of life missions, and federal agencies will have a single portal through which to submit complaints of radio frequency (RF) interference, FCC-5624. This online RF interference intake portal will enhance the Commission's ability to efficiently triage and assign RF interference complaints to field agents for further investigation, mitigation, and/or enforcement action, as appropriate.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07662 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0056, 3060-0823, 3060-0971] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before May 17, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0056.

    Title: Part 68, Connection of Terminal Equipment to the Telephone Network.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 58,310 respondents; 64,177 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 hours-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement, third party disclosure requirement, and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 201-205 and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 22,559 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,130,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Part 68 rules do not require respondents to provide proprietary, trade secret or other confidential information to the Commission. If the FCC requests that respondents submit information which respondents believe is confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information pursuant to Section 0.459 of the FCC's rules, 47 CFR 0.459.

    Needs and Uses: The purpose of 47 CFR part 68 is to protect the telephone network from certain types of harm and prevent interference to subscribers. To (1) demonstrate that terminal equipment complies with criteria for protecting the network and (2) ensure that consumers, providers of telecommunications, the Commission and others are able to trace products to the party responsible for ensuring compliance with these criteria; it is essential to require manufacturers or other responsible parties to provide the information required by Part 68. In addition, incumbent local exchange carriers must provide the information in Part 68 to warn their subscribers of impending disconnection of service when subscriber terminal equipment is causing telephone network harm, and to inform subscribers of a change in network facilities that requires modification or alteration of subscribers' terminal equipment.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0823.

    Title: Part 64, Pay Telephone Reclassification.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 400 respondents; 16,820 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2.66 hours (average).

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, quarterly and monthly reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201-205, 218, 226 and 276.

    Total Annual Burden: 44,700 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $740,000.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality concerns are not relevant to these types of disclosures. The Commission is not requesting carriers or providers to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests that carriers or providers submit information which they believe is confidential, the carriers or providers may request confidential treatment of their information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission established a plan to ensure that payphone service providers (PSPs) were compensated for certain non-coin calls originated from their payphones. As part of this plan, the Commission required that by October 7, 1997, local exchange carriers were to provide payphone-specific coding digits to PSPs, and that PSPs were to provide those digits from their payphones to interexchange carriers. The provision of payphone-specific coding digits was a prerequisite to payphone per-call compensation payments by IXCs to PSPs for subscriber 800 and access code calls. The Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau subsequently provided a waiver until March 9, 1998, for those payphones for which the necessary coding digits were not provided to identify calls. The Bureau also on that date clarified the requirements established in the Payphone Orders for the provision of payphone-specific coding digits and for tariffs that LECs must file pursuant to the Payphone Orders.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0971.

    Title: Section 52.15, Request for “For Cause” Audits and State Commission's Access to Numbering Resource Application Information.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,105 respondents; 63,005 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.166 hours to 3 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-209, 218, 225-227, 251-252, 271 and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,473 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Carrier numbering resource applications and audits of carrier compliance will be treated as confidential and will be exempt from public disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

    Needs and Uses: There are two Paperwork Reduction Act related obligations under this OMB Control Number:

    1. The North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA), the Pooling Administrator, or a state commission may draft a request to the auditor stating the reason for the request, such as misleading or inaccurate data, and attach supporting documentation; and

    2. Requests for copies of carriers' applications for numbering resources may be made directly to carriers.

    The information collected will be used by the FCC, state commissions, the NANPA and the Pooling Administrator to verify the validity and accuracy of such data and to assist state commissions in carrying out their numbering responsibilities, such as area code relief.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07665 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0987] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0987.

    Title: 911 Callback Capability; Non-initialized Handsets (47 CFR Sections 20.18 (l)(1)(i-iii), 20.18 (l)(2)(i-iii)).

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 968 respondents; 225,968 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.01258143 hour (range of 30 seconds for labeling each handset to one hour for each respondent's public education effort).

    Frequency of Response: Third-party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Mandatory. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332.

    Total Annual Burden: 2,843 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

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

    Needs and Uses: In 2003, the Commission modified 47 CFR Section 20.18(l) to further improve the ability of public safety answering points (PSAPs) to respond quickly and efficiently to calls for emergency assistance made from non-service initialized wireless mobile handsets. Non-service-initialized wireless mobile handsets (non-initialized handsets) are not registered for service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licensee. A non-initialized handset lacks a dialable number, but is programmed to make outgoing 911 calls. The Commission addressed issues arising from the inability of a PSAP operator to call back a 911 caller who becomes disconnected when using a non-service-initialized wireless handset. These requirements also apply to manufacturers of 911-only handsets that are manufactured after May 3, 2004.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07661 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION SES Performance Review Board

    As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454), Chairman Ajit Pai has appointed the following executives to the Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB):

    Michelle Carey Shearer Kris Monteith Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07659 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0204] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0204.

    Title: Special Eligibility Showings for Authorizations in the Public Safety Pool (47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v) and 90.20(a)(2)(xi)).

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or household and business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 220 respondents; 220 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.704 hours (range of 15 minutes to 45 minutes).

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for the collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

    Total Annual Burden: 155 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The information collection in 47 CFR 90.20(a)(2)(v) affects individuals, and there is a system of records that covers it (FCC/WTB-1, Wireless Services Licensing Records).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Requests to withhold information submitted to the Commission from public inspection will be treated in accordance with section 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission collects this information to ensure that certain non-governmental applicants applying for the use of frequencies in the Public Safety Pool meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Commission's rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07663 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0986] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission published a document in the Federal Register of March 31, 2017, concerning a request for comments for the information collection High-Cost Universal Service Support. The document contained an incorrect date.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of March 31, 2017, in FR. Document 2017-06364, on page 16037, in the second column, correct the “Dates” caption to read:

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before [May 1, 2017]. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07660 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0506] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0506.

    Title: Application for FM Broadcast Station License, Form 302-FM.

    Form Number: FCC Form 302-FM.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 925 respondents; 925 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-2 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 3,135 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $601,500.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment(s): No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 302-FM is required to be filed by licensees and permittees of FM broadcast stations to request and obtain a new or modified station license and/or to notify the Commission of certain changes in the licensed facilities of these stations. Data is used by FCC staff to confirm that the station is built to the terms specified in the outstanding construction permit and to ensure that any changes made to the station will not have any impact on other stations and the public. Data is extracted from FCC Form 302-FM for inclusion in the license to operate the station.

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07666 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0110] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

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

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before June 16, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0110.

    Title: Application for Renewal of Broadcast Station License, FCC Form 303-S; Section 73.3555(d), Daily Newspaper Cross-Ownership.

    Form Number: FCC Form 303-S.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; Not for profit institutions; State, Local or Tribal Governments.

    Number of Respondent and Responses: 4,023 respondents, 4,023 responses.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits—Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1.25-12 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Every eight year reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 10,797 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: $5,073,271.

    Nature of Response: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for the collection is contained Sections 154(i), 303, 307 and 308 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 204 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: FCC Form 303-S is used in applying for renewal of license for commercial or noncommercial AM, FM, TV, FM translator, TV translator, Class A TV, or Low Power TV, and Low Power FM broadcast station licenses. Licensees of broadcast stations must apply for renewal of their licenses every eight years. The Commission is revising this collection to reflect the adoption of a Report and Order (“R&O”) in MB Docket No. 16-161, FCC 17-3, In the Matter of Revisions to Public Inspection File Requirements—Broadcaster Correspondence File and Cable Principal Headend Location, adopted and released on January 31, 2017. The R&O eliminated the requirement that commercial TV stations retain in their public inspection file copies of letters and emails from the public. As the Commission noted in the R&O, because commercial TV licensees will no longer be required to maintain correspondence under our rules, under the terms of 47 U.S.C. Section 308(d) they also will not be required to file a summary of correspondence received regarding violent programming with their renewal application (FCC Form 303-S). Consistent with this decision, we are revising Form 303-S to remove the references in the form to this requirement.

    We are making the following specific changes to FCC Form 303-S:

    On page 5 of the form, we are removing item 4 (Violent Programming).

    On page 25 of the instructions, we are removing the paragraph titled “Item 4: Violent Programming.”

    Federal Communications Commission. Katura Jackson, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07664 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2017-N-1847] Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee (PCAC). The general function of the committee is to provide advice on scientific, technical, and medical issues concerning drug compounding under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory responsibility, and to make appropriate recommendations to the Agency. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on May 8, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and May 9, 2017, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 noon.

    FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA-2017-N-1847. The docket will close on May 5, 2017. Comments received on or before April 24, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions, including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. 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-2017-N-1847 for “Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.” 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: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    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:

    Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-9001, FAX: 301-847-8533, email: [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: Section 503A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353a) describes the conditions that must be satisfied for human drug products compounded by a licensed pharmacist in a State licensed pharmacy or a Federal facility, or licensed physician, to be exempt from the following three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 501(a)(2)(B) (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B)) (concerning current good manufacturing practice (CGMP)); (2) section 502(f)(1) (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); and (3) section 505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of human drug products under new drug applications (NDAs) or abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs)).

    The Drug Quality and Security Act added a new section 503B to the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 353b), which created a new category of compounders termed “outsourcing facilities.” Under section 503B of the FD&C Act, outsourcing facilities are defined, in part, as facilities that meet certain conditions described in section 503B, including registration with FDA as an outsourcing facility. If these conditions are satisfied, a drug product compounded for human use by or under the direct supervision of a licensed pharmacist in an outsourcing facility is exempt from three sections of the FD&C Act: (1) Section 502(f)(1) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate directions for use); (2) section 505 (concerning the approval of human drug products under NDAs or ANDAs); and (3) section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning the drug supply chain security requirements). Outsourcing facilities are not exempt from CGMP requirements in section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act.

    One of the conditions that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act is that a bulk drug substance (active pharmaceutical ingredient) used in a compounded drug product must meet one of the following criteria: (1) Complies with the standards of an applicable United States Pharmacopoeia (USP) or National Formulary monograph, if a monograph exists, and the USP chapter on pharmacy compounding; (2) if an applicable monograph does not exist, is a component of a drug approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary); or (3) if such a monograph does not exist and the drug substance is not a component of a drug approved by the Secretary, appears on a list developed by the Secretary through regulations issued by the Secretary (the “503A Bulks List”) (see section 503A(b)(1)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act).

    Another condition that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions under section 503A of the FD&C Act is that the compounded drug product is not a drug product identified by the Secretary by regulation as a drug product that presents demonstrable difficulties for compounding that reasonably demonstrate an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of that drug product (see section 503A(b)(3)(A) of the FD&C Act).

    A condition that must be satisfied to qualify for the exemptions in section 503B of the FD&C Act is that the compounded drug is not identified (directly or as part of a category of drugs) on a list, published by the Secretary by regulation after consulting with the PCAC, of drugs or categories of drugs that present demonstrable difficulties for compounding that are reasonably likely to lead to an adverse effect on the safety or effectiveness of the drug or category of drugs, taking into account the risks and benefits to patients, or the drug is compounded in accordance with all applicable conditions identified on the list as conditions that are necessary to prevent the drug or category of drugs from presenting such demonstrable difficulties (see section 503B(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the FD&C Act).

    FDA intends to discuss with the committee bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion on the 503A Bulks List and drug products nominated for inclusion on the list of drug products that present demonstrable difficulties for compounding under sections 503A and 503B (“Difficult to Compound List”).

    Agenda: The committee will receive updates on certain issues to follow up on discussions from previous meetings, including quality standards and conditions at certain compounding facilities. In addition, the committee intends to discuss six bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion on the section 503A Bulks List. FDA will discuss the following nominated bulk drug substances: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide disodium reduced, nettle (Urtica dioica) whole plant, ubiquinol, vanadyl sulfate, and artemisinin. The chart below describes which use(s) FDA reviewed for each of the six bulk drug substances being discussed at this advisory committee meeting. The nominators of these substances will be invited to make a short presentation supporting the nomination.

    Drug Use(s) reviewed Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide Reducing fatigue in multiple sclerosis. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide disodium reduced Reduce symptoms of fatigue in chronic fatigue syndrome. Nettle (Urtica dioica) whole plant Glycemic control. Ubiquinol Glycemic control. Vanadyl sulfate Diabetes, hypoglycemia, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, preventing cancer. Artemisinin Malaria, protozoal infections (particularly toxoplasmosis), helminthic infections, stomach ulcers, cancer.

    The committee also intends to discuss oral solid modified release drug products that employ coated systems, which were nominated for the Difficult to Compound List. The nominators will be invited to make a short presentation supporting the nomination.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. All electronic and written submissions submitted to the Docket (see the Addresses section) on or before April 24, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 10:15 a.m. and 10:25 a.m., 11:35 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., 1:45 p.m. and 1:55 p.m., 2:50 p.m. and 3 p.m., and 4:10 p.m. and 4:20 p.m. on May 8, 2017, and between approximately 10 a.m. and 10:10 a.m. and 11:35 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. on May 9, 2017. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before April 14, 2017. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 17, 2017.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07667 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC). The meeting will be open to the public; public comment sessions will be held during the meeting.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 6 and 7, 2017. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html as soon as they become available.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    Pre-registration is required for members of the public who wish to attend the meeting and who wish to participate in the public comment session. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html. Participants may also register by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-5566 and providing their name, organization and email address.

    The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast on both days of the meeting. For more information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.

    During the June 2017 NVAC meeting, sessions will include an update on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services' report on vaccine innovation to Congress in response to the 21st Century Cures Act; presentations on immunization information systems and inter-jurisdictional data exchange; and an update on vaccine confidence-related projects. Please note that agenda items will be related to the charge of the Committee and are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/index.html.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend in person and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/index.html.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office ([email protected]) at least five business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: March 23, 2017. Jewel Mullen, Acting Director, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07707 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is hereby giving notice that a meeting is scheduled to be held for the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (Advisory Council). The meeting will be open to the public; a public comment session will be held during the meeting. Pre-registration is required for members of the public who wish to attend the meeting and who wish to participate in the public comment session. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or send in their public comment via email should send an email to [email protected] Registration information is available on the Web site http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ and must be completed by April 25, 2017; all in-person attendees must pre-register by this date. Additional information about registering for the meeting and providing public comment can be obtained at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ on the Meetings page.

    DATES:

    The meeting is scheduled to be held on May 3, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, and May 4, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. ET (times are tentative and subject to change). The confirmed times and agenda items for the meeting will be posted on the Web site for the Advisory Council at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ when this information becomes available. Pre-registration for attending the meeting in person is required to be completed no later than April 25, 2017; public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast on the day of the meeting. For more information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jomana Musmar, Acting Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under Executive Order 13676, dated September 18, 2014, authority was given to the Secretary of HHS to establish the Advisory Council, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture. Activities of the Advisory Council are governed by the provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of federal advisory committees.

    The Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of HHS regarding programs and policies intended to support and evaluate the implementation of Executive Order 13676, including the National Strategy for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and the National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria. The Advisory Council shall function solely for advisory purposes.

    In carrying out its mission, the Advisory Council will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary regarding programs and policies intended to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics by optimizing their use; advance research to develop improved methods for combating antibiotic resistance and conducting antibiotic stewardship; strengthen surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; prevent the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections; advance the development of rapid point-of-care and agricultural diagnostics; further research on new treatments for bacterial infections; develop alternatives to antibiotics for agricultural purposes; maximize the dissemination of up-to-date information on the appropriate and proper use of antibiotics to the general public and human and animal healthcare providers; and improve international coordination of efforts to combat antibiotic resistance.

    The first day of the public meeting, May 3, 2017, will be dedicated to the topic of Infection Prevention and Control for Animal Health. The three working groups on Incentives for Diagnostics, Therapeutics/Anti-Infectives, and Vaccines, will report their preliminary findings to the full Advisory Council for deliberation on the second day of the public meeting, May 4, 2017; no vote will be held. The meeting agenda will be posted on the Advisory Council Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/ when it has been finalized. All agenda items are tentative and subject to change.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Advisory Council at the address/telephone number listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/ash/carb/.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments prior to the Advisory Council meeting by emailing [email protected] Public comments should be sent in by midnight April 25, 2017, and should be limited to no more than one page. All public comments received prior to April 25, 2017, will be provided to Advisory Council members; comments are limited to two minutes per speaker.

    Dated: April 12, 2017. Jewel Mullen, Acting Director, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07708 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Determination and Declaration Regarding Emergency Use of Injectable Treatments for Nerve Agent or Certain Insecticide (Organophosphorus and/or Carbamate) Poisoning AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this notice pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. On April 11, 2017, the Secretary determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves nerve agents or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate).

    On the basis of this determination, he also declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.

    DATES:

    The determination and declaration are effective April 11, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    George Korch, Ph.D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Telephone (202) 205-2882 (this is not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Under Section 564 of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing (1) the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent or agents; (2) the identification of a material threat by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act 1 sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad; (3) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent or agents; or (4) a determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent or agents.2

    1 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(c).

    2 As amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act, Public Law 113-5, the Secretary may make determination of a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, under section 564 of the FD&C Act. The Secretary is no longer required to make a determination of a public health emergency in accordance with section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d to support a determination or declaration made under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

    Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the FDA Commissioner may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requested that the FDA issue an EUA for use of an injectable treatment for nerve agent and certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning to support preparedness and response to potential public health threats posed by these agents and compounds. At this time, FDA-approved injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning are not available to replenish the Department's Strategic National Stockpile 3 inventory when the products in the current inventory expire. Pending the availability of such products, an EUA will facilitate ensuring that the products are available in the event of a public health emergency involving nerve agent or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate). The determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enables the FDA Commissioner to issue an EUA for certain injectable treatments for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

    3 42 U.S.C. 247d-6b(a).

    II. Determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    On April 11, 2017, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, I determined that there is a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves nerve agents or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate).1

    III. Declaration of the Secretary of Health and Human Services

    On April 11, 2017, on the basis of my determination of a significant potential for a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves nerve agents or certain insecticides (organophosphorus and/or carbamate), I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of injectable treatments for nerve agent or certain insecticide (organophosphorus and/or carbamate) poisoning pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.

    Notice of any EUAs issued by the FDA Commissioner pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly in the Federal Register as required under section 564 of the FD&C Act.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Thomas E. Price, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07685 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; TOPMed Informatics Research Center (IRC).

    Date: May 9, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel; TOPMed Data Coordinating Center (DCC).

    Date: May 9, 2017.

    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: William J. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7178, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0725, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 11, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07618 Filed 4-14-17; 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; PAR-15-276: Turkey-US Collaborative Program for Affordable Medical Technologies (R01).

    Date: May 5, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Careen K. Tang-Toth, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6214, MSC 7804, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-3504, [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: April 11, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07617 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; 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: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Support for Conferences and Scientific Meetings (Parent R13/U13).

    Date: May 9-11, 2017.

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: J. Bruce Sundstrom, Ph.D.

    Scientific Review Official, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3G11A, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5045, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01/R01).

    Date: May 10, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health Rockville, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Yong Gao, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room #3G13B, National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 20892-7616, (240) 669-5048, [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 11, 2017. Natasha M. Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07619 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0011; 1660-0011] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Debt Collection Financial Statement AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information related to disaster program accounts and debts owed to FEMA by individuals.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2017-0011. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE., Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jackie Cohen, Chief, Debt Management Unit, FEMA Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, FEMA at (540) 504-1650. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act as amended (Pub. L. 104-134), the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR parts 900-904) and DHS regulations (6 CFR 11); the Administrator of FEMA is: (1) Required to attempt collection of all debts owed to the United States arising out of activities of FEMA; and (2) for debts not exceeding $100,000, authorized to compromise such debts or terminate collection action completely where it appears that that the person liable for such debt does not have the present or prospective financial ability to pay a significant sum, or that the cost of collecting such debt is likely to exceed the amount of recovery (31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2)). FEMA is revising this collection by requesting additional information on FEMA Form 127-0-1 including the debtor's phone number and detailed information concerning the debtor's dependents, including age, relationship, and contribution to the household income, if any. Additionally, FEMA has incorporated Household Expense Listing form questions such as other monthly gross income, monthly housing & utility expenses, monthly transportation expenses, etc.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Debt Collection Financial Statement.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0011.

    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 127-0-1, Debt Collection Financial Statement.

    Abstract: FEMA may request debtors to provide personal financial information on FEMA Form 127-0-1 concerning their current financial position. FEMA uses this information to determine whether to compromise, suspend, or completely terminate collection efforts on respondents' debts. This information is also used to locate debtor's assets if the debts are sent for judicial enforcement.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Number of Responses: 300.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 225 hours.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $7,632.00. There are no annual costs to respondents' operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There are no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $62,644.00.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: April 5, 2017. Tammi Hines, Records Management Program Chief (Acting), Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07611 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0006; OMB No. 1660-0126] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will use.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Records Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, or email address [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed information collection previously published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2017 at 82 FR 9071 with a 60 day public comment period. FEMA received one request for a copy of the proposed information collection by the public. The Agency responded to this comment and provided the most up-to-date copy of the proposed information collection to the requester. The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance.

    Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG).

    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0126.

    Form Titles and Numbers: None.

    Abstract: The Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) Program assists State and local governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities. The EMPG Work Plan narrative must demonstrate how proposed projects address gaps, deficiencies, and capabilities in current programs and the ability to provide enhancements consistent with the purpose of the program and guidance provided by FEMA. FEMA uses the information to provide details, timelines, and milestones on proposed projects.

    Affected Public: State, Local, Territorial, or Tribal Government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 58.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 174 hours.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $9,008.26. There are no annual costs to respondents operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is $415,206.

    Dated: April 5, 2017. Tammi Hines, Records Management Program Chief (Acting), Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07613 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-46-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R4-ES-2017-N019; FXES11140400000-178-FF04E00000] Threatened Wildlife; Incidental Take Permit Application and Environmental Assessment for Road Construction Activities; Hernando and Citrus Counties, FL AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP) and accompanying documents for activities associated with the construction of the Suncoast Parkway 2, a four-lane limited-access toll facility (project) in Citrus and Hernando Counties, Florida. If issued, the permit would authorize take of the federally threatened eastern indigo snake (indigo snake) and the Federal candidate gopher tortoise incidental to project construction. We invite the public to comment on these documents.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Obtaining Documents: Documents are available for public inspection by appointment during regular business hours at either of the following locations:

    • Atlanta Regional Office, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345.

    • North Florida Ecological Services Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, 7915 Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517.

    Submitting Comments: Submit comments by one of the following methods. Please reference TE97201B-0 in all comments. For additional guidance, please see Public Comments under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    U.S. mail: You may mail comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service's Atlanta Regional Office.

    Hand-delivery: You may hand-deliver comments to the Atlanta or the Jacksonville Office.

    Email: You may email comments to [email protected] Please include your name and return address in your email message. If you do not receive a confirmation from us that we have received your email message, contact us directly at either telephone number in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 404-679-7313; or Jay Herrington, Field Supervisor, at the North Florida Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone: 904-731-3191. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the receipt and availability of a proposed habitat conservation plan (HCP), accompanying incidental take permit (ITP) application, and environmental assessment (EA) related to an application from Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (applicant), a unit of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), for a permit associated with construction of the Suncoast Parkway 2, a limited-access toll facility (project) in Hernando and Citrus Counties, Florida. We invite the public to comment on these documents.

    The applicant's proposed HCP describes the mitigation and minimization measures proposed to address the impacts resulting from take of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon courais cooperi) and gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), the covered species, incidental to the project. Per the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), the EA analyzes the take of the covered species and the environment. The applicant requests a 10-year ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Environmental Assessment

    The EA assesses the likely environmental impacts associated with the project, including the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative and the proposed action alternative. The proposed action alternative is issuance of the ITP and implementation of the HCP as submitted by the applicant. The applicant anticipates direct impacts to approximately 700 acres of indigo snake and gopher tortoise suitable habitat incidental to project construction.

    Habitat Conservation Plan

    The minimization and mitigation measures proposed in the HCP include an extensive network of wildlife fencing and crossings to improve habitat connectivity and minimize wildlife mortality associated with the roadway; multiple safety features to support implementation of the Florida Forest Service (FFS) Resource Management Plan; various avoidance and minimization measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts to the covered species; a monetary contribution to the Friends of the Florida State Forests, Inc. for land management activities; and the purchase of high-quality, regionally significant mitigation parcels approved by the FFS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) prior to the completion of the project. Upon acquisition, each mitigation parcel would be transferred to the State of Florida for management by FFS or FWC. In accordance with FWC permitting guidelines, gopher tortoises within the approximately 1,300-acre proposed project area will be relocated prior to construction activities, and therefore are not expected to be subject to take via injury, mortality, or harassment during project construction.

    Public Comments

    We specifically request information, views, and opinions from the public on our proposed Federal action, including but not limited to identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the EA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically solicit information regarding the adequacy of the HCP per 50 CFR parts 13 and 17.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Covered Area

    Indigo snakes and gopher tortoises historically occurred in longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) sandhill habitats found throughout the proposed project area. The area encompassed by the HCP and ITP application consists of public, private, and applicant-owned lands currently occupied by the species or suitable for occupancy by restoration as indigo snake and gopher tortoise habitat.

    Next Steps

    We will evaluate the ITP application, including the HCP, and any comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. We will also conduct an intra-Service section 7 consultation to evaluate whether to issue the requested section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP. We will use the results of this consultation, in combination with the above findings, in our final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP. If we determine that the requirements are met, we will issue the ITP for the incidental take of the eastern indigo snake and gopher tortoise.

    Authority

    We provide this notice under section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

    Dated: February 15, 2017. Mike Oetker, Acting Regional Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07676 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS-R3-ES-2017-N030; FX3ES11130300000-178-FF03E00000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Initiation of 5-Year Status Reviews of Eight Endangered Animal Species AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for eight animal species. A 5-year status review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the last review for the species.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, please send your written information by June 16, 2017. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    For instructions on how to submit information for each species, see the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request information, contact the appropriate person in the table in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are initiating 5-year status reviews under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), for eight animal species listed as endangered: Iowa Pleistocene snail (Discus macclintocki), Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis), Kirtland's warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii [=Dendroica kirtlandii]), Ozark hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishop), rayed bean (Villosa fabalis), sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus), snuffbox (Epioblasma triquetra), and spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta).

    Why do we conduct 5-year reviews?

    Under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals) and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species under active review. For additional information about 5-year reviews, go to http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/recovery-overview.html, scroll down to “Learn More about 5-Year Reviews,” and click on our factsheet.

    What information do we consider in our review?

    A 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the current listing determination or most recent status review of each species, such as:

    (A) Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;

    (B) Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;

    (C) Conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species;

    (D) Threat status and trends in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the Act); and

    (E) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.

    New information will be considered in the 5-year review and ongoing recovery programs for the species.

    What species are under review?

    This notice announces our active 5-year status reviews of the species in the following table.

    Common name Scientific name Where listed Final listing rule
  • (Federal Register
  • citation and
  • publication date)
  • Contact person, email, phone Contact person's
  • U.S. mail address
  • Iowa Pleistocene snail Discus macclintocki Illinois, Iowa 43 FR 28932; August 2, 1978 Kristen Lundh; [email protected]; 309-757-5800, x215 USFWS; 1511 47th Avenue; Moline, IL 61265. Karner blue butterfly Lycaeides melissa samuelis Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin 57 FR 59236; December 14, 1992 Jill Utrup; [email protected]; 952-252-0092, x207 USFWS, 4101 American Boulevard East; Bloomington, MN 55425. Kirtland's warbler Setophaga kirtlandii [=Dendroica kirtlandii] Michigan, Wisconsin 32 FR 4001; March 11, 1967 Carrie Tansy; [email protected]; 517-351-8375 USFWS, 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101; East Lansing, MI 48823. Rayed bean Villosa fabalis Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia 77 FR 8632; February 14, 2012 Angela Boyer; [email protected]; 614-416-8993, x22 USFWS, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104; Columbus, OH 43230. Sheepnose Plethobasus cyphyus Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin 77 FR 14914; March 13, 2012 Kristen Lundh; [email protected]; 309-757-5800, x215. USFWS; 1511 47th Avenue; Moline, IL 61265. Snuffbox Epioblasma triquetra Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin 77 FR 8632; February 14, 2012 Angela Boyer; [email protected]; 614-416-8993, x22 USFWS, 4625 Morse Road, Suite 104; Columbus, OH 43230. Spectaclecase Cumberlandia monodonta Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin. 77 FR 14914; March 13, 2012 Tamara Smith; [email protected]; 952-252-0092, x219 USFWS, 4101 American Boulevard East; Bloomington, MN 55425. Ozark hellbender Cryptobranchus alleganiensis bishopi Arkansas, Missouri. 76 FR 61956; October 6, 2011 Trisha Crabill; [email protected]; 573-234-2132 USFWS, 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite A; Columbia, MO 65203.
    Request for Information

    To ensure that a 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. See “What Information Do We Consider in Our Review?” for specific information. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.

    How do I ask questions or provide information?

    If you wish to provide information for any species listed above, please submit your comments and materials to the appropriate contact in the table above. You may also direct questions to those contacts. Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 for TTY assistance.

    Public Availability of Submissions

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices where the comments are submitted.

    Authority:

    We publish this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: February 10, 2017. Lori Nordstrom, Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Midwest Region.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07674 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act

    On March 31, 2017, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the lawsuit entitled United States v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00689.

    The proposed Consent Decree resolves claims by the United States in the associated complaint under the Clean Water Act against Sunoco Pipeline L.P. (“Sunoco”) for the illegal discharge of 1,950 barrels of gasoline into a water of the United States. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Sunoco agrees to pay civil penalties in the amount of $990,000 within 30 days of the effective date of the proposed Consent Decree.

    The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to United States v. Sunoco Pipeline L.P., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-11415. 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 email [email protected] By mail Acting 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 $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury.

    Randall M. Stone, Acting Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07642 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-15-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors and its six committees will meet April 23-25, 2017. On Sunday, April 23, the first meeting will commence at 2:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). On Monday, April 24, the first meeting will commence at 9:00 a.m., EDT, with the next meeting commencing promptly upon adjournment of the immediately preceding meeting. On Tuesday, April 25, the first meeting will commence at 9:00 a.m., EDT and will be followed by the closed session meeting of the Board of Directors that will commence promptly upon adjournment of the prior meeting.

    LOCATION:

    Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW., 3rd Floor F. William McCalpin Conference Center, Washington, DC 20007.

    PUBLIC OBSERVATION:

    Unless otherwise noted herein, the Board and all committee meetings will be open to public observation. Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.

    CALL-IN DIRECTIONS FOR OPEN SESSIONS:

    • Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;

    • When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348.

    • Once connected to the call, your telephone line will be automatically “MUTED”.

    • To participate in the meeting during public comment press #6 to “UNMUTE” your telephone line, once you have concluded your comments please press *6 to “MUTE” your line.

    Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the presiding Chair may solicit comments from the public. Meeting Schedule Sunday, April 23, 2017/Time*

    * Please note that all times in this notice are in Eastern Daylight Time.

    1. Operations & Regulations Committee 2:00 p.m. Monday, April 24, 2017 1. Finance Committee 9:00 a.m. 2. Delivery of Legal Services Committee 3. Institutional Advancement Committee 4. Communications Subcommittee of the Institutional Advancement Committee 5. Audit Committee 6. Governance and Performance Committee Tuesday, April 25, 2017 1. Board of Directors 9:00 a.m. STATUS OF MEETING:

    Open, except as noted below.

    Board of Directors—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, a portion of the meeting may be closed to the public to hear briefings by management and LSC's Inspector General, and to consider and act on the General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation involving LSC, and on a list of prospective funders.**

    ** Any portion of the closed session consisting solely of briefings does not fall within the Sunshine Act's definition of the term ``meeting'' and, therefore, the requirements of the Sunshine Act do not apply to such portion of the closed session. 5 U.S.C. 552b(a)(2) and (b). See also 45 C.F.R. § 1622.2 & 1622.3.

    Institutional Advancement Committee—Open, except that, upon a vote of the Board of Directors, the meeting may be closed to the public to consider and act on recommendation of new Leaders Council invitees and to receive a report on Development activities.**

    Audit Committee—Open, except that the meeting may be closed to the public to hear a briefing on the Office of Compliance and Enforcement's active enforcement matters.**

    A verbatim written transcript will be made of the closed session of the Board, Institutional Advancement Committee, and Audit Committee meetings. The transcript of any portions of the closed sessions falling within the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (10), will not be available for public inspection. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that, in his opinion, the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    April 23, 2017 Operations & Regulations Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting of January 26, 2017 3. Update on performance management and human capital management • Traci Higgins, Director of Human Resources 4. Report on data validation and enhancement process • Carlos Manjarrez, Director of the Office of Data Governance and Analysis 5. Consider and act on the 2017-2018 Rulemaking Agenda • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel • Mark Freedman, Senior Associate General Counsel 6. Consider and act on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 45 CFR part 1629—Bonding • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel • Tyler Ellis, Law Fellow 7. Consider and act on a Final Rule for 45 CFR part 1609—Fee Generating Cases • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel • Blair Gilbert, Law Fellow 8. Report on Rulemaking for 45 CFR parts 1630 and 1631—Costs and Property • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel • Mark Freedman, Senior Associate General Counsel 9. Other public comment 10. Consider and act on other business 11. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting April 24, 2017 Finance Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on January 27, 2017 3. Approval of minutes of the Combined Finance and Audit Committee's Open Session meeting on January 27, 2017 4. Presentation of LSC's Financial Report for the first five months of FY 2017 • David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller 5. Discussion of LSC's FY 2017 appropriations • Carol Bergman, Vice President for Government Relations & Public Affairs 6. Review of LSC's Operating Budget for FY 2017 and Internal budgetary adjustments • David Richardson, Treasurer/Comptroller 7. Discussion of LSC's FY 2018 appropriations request • Carol Bergman, Director of Government Relations & Public Affairs 8. Management discussion regarding process and timetable for FY 2019 budget request • Carol Bergman, Director of Government Relations & Public Affairs 9. Public comment 10. Consider and act on other business 11. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting April 24, 2017 Delivery of Legal Services Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on January 27, 2017 3. Discussion of Committee transition planning 4. Update of LSC revision of Performance Criteria • Lynn Jennings, Vice President for Grants Management 5. Presentation on grantee oversight by the Office of Program Performance a. Grantee visits b. Program Quality Visit recommendations c. Post-Program Quality Visit and grantee application reviews d. Special grant conditions and grant terms • Lynn Jennings, Vice President for Grants Management • Janet LaBella, Director, Office of Program Performance • Althea Hayward, Deputy Director, Office of Program Performance 6. Public comment 7. Consider and act on other business 8. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting April 24, 2017 Institutional Advancement Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting of January 27, 2017 3. Update on Leaders Council • John G. Levi, Chairman of the Board 4. Development report • Alison Stautberg, Director of Institutional Advancement 5. Public Comment 6. Consider and act on other business 7. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to a closed session Closed Session 8. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Closed Session meeting of January 27, 2017 9. Development activities report 10. Consider and act on motion to approve Leaders Council invitees 11. Consider and act on other business 12. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting Communications Subcommittee of the Institutional Advancement Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Subcommittee's Open Session meeting of January 27, 2017 3. Communications analytics update • Carl Rauscher, Director of Communications and Media Relations 4. Public comment 5. Consider and act on other business 6. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the meeting April 24, 2017 Audit Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on January 27, 2017 3. Approval of minutes of the Combined Audit and Finance Committee's Open Session meeting on January 27, 2017 4. Briefing of Office of Inspector General • Jeffrey Schanz, Inspector General • John Seeba, Assistant Inspector General for Audits 5. Management update regarding risk management • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs 6. Briefing about follow-up by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on referrals by the Office of Inspector General regarding audit reports and annual Independent Public audits of grantees • Lora Rath, Director of Compliance and Enforcement • John Seeba, Assistant IG for Audits 7. Public comment 8. Consider and act on other business 9. Consider and act on motion to adjourn the open session meeting and proceed to a closed session Closed Session 10. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Closed Session meeting of January 27, 2017 11. Briefing by the Office of Compliance and Enforcement on active enforcement matter(s) and follow-up to open investigation referrals from the Office of Inspector General • Lora Rath, Director of Compliance and Enforcement 12. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting April 24, 2017 Governance and Performance Review Committee Open Session 1. Approval of agenda 2. Approval of minutes of the Committee's Open Session meeting on January 26, 2017 3. Report on evaluations of LSC's Comptroller, Vice President for Grants Management, Vice President for Government Relations & Public Affairs, and Vice President for Legal Affairs • Jim Sandman, President 4. Report on foundation grants and LSC's research agenda • Jim Sandman, President 5. Briefing and presentation on Ford Foundation report on statewide legal aid Web sites • Lynn Jennings, Vice President for Grants Management • David Bonebrake, Program Counsel 6. Report on transition planning • Report on White House transition • Carol Bergman, Vice President for Government Relations & Public Affairs • Report on Board transition • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs 7. Consider and act on other business 8. Public comment 9. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting April 24-25, 2017 Board of Directors Open Session—April 24 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of agenda 3. Approval of minutes of the Board's Open Session meeting of January 28, 2017 4. Presentation of Resolution 2017-008: In Memoriam—Bertrand Shipley Thomas 5. Chairman's Report 6. Members' Report 7. Consider and act on motion to recess the meeting to April 25 Open Session—April 25 1. President's Report 2. Inspector General's Report 3. Consider and act on the report of the Operations and Regulations Committee 4. Consider and act on the report of the Finance Committee 5. Consider and act on the report of the Delivery of Legal Services Committee 6. Consider and act on the report of the Institutional Advancement Committee 7. Consider and act on the report of the Audit Committee 8. Consider and act on the report of the Governance and Performance Review Committee 9. Public Comment 10. Consider and act on other business 11. Consider and act on whether to authorize a closed session of the Board to address items listed below Closed Session 1. Approval of minutes of the Board's Closed Session meeting of January 28, 2017 2. Management briefing 3. Inspector General briefing 4. Consider and act on General Counsel's report on potential and pending litigation Involving LSC 5. Consider and act on list of prospective Leaders Council members 6. Consider and act on motion to adjourn meeting CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected]

    NON-CONFIDENTIAL MEETING MATERIALS:

    Non-confidential meeting materials will be made available in electronic format at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting on the LSC Web site, at http://www.lsc.gov/board-directors/meetings/board-meeting-notices/non-confidential-materials-be-considered-open-session.

    ACCESSIBILITY:

    LSC complies with the American's with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals who need other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or [email protected], at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.

    Dated: April 13, 2017. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07793 Filed 4-13-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board [Docket No. 17-CRB-0011-SD (2015)] Distribution of 2015 Satellite Royalty Funds AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Notice requesting comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges solicit comments on a motion of Allocation Phase claimants for partial distribution of 2015 satellite royalty funds.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested claimants must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. Unless responding by email or online, claimants must submit an original, 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anita Blaine, CRB Program Specialist, by telephone at (202) 707-7658 or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Each year satellite systems must submit royalty payments to the Register of Copyrights as required by the statutory license set forth in section 119 of the Copyright Act for the retransmission to satellite subscribers of over-the-air television broadcast signals. See 17 U.S.C. 119(b). The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) oversee distribution of royalties to copyright owners whose works were included in a qualifying transmission and who timely filed a claim for royalties.

    Allocation of the royalties collected occurs in one of two ways. In the first instance, the Judges may authorize distribution in accordance with a negotiated settlement among all claiming parties. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(A), 801(b)(3)(A). If all claimants do not reach an agreement with respect to the royalties, the Judges must conduct a proceeding to determine the distribution of any royalties that remain in controversy. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(B), 801(b)(3)(B). Alternatively, the Judges may, on motion of claimants and on notice to all interested parties, authorize a partial distribution of royalties, reserving on deposit sufficient funds to resolve identified disputes. 17 U.S.C. 119(b)(5)(C), 801(b)(3)(C).

    On February 17, 2017, representatives of all the Allocation Phase claimant categories (formerly “Phase I”) 1 filed with the Judges a motion requesting a partial distribution amounting to 60% of the 2015 satellite royalty funds pursuant to section 801(b)(3)(C) of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(3)(C). That section requires that, before ruling on the motion, the Judges publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking responses to the motion for partial distribution to ascertain whether any claimant entitled to receive the subject royalties has a reasonable objection to the requested distribution. Accordingly, this notice seeks comments from interested claimants on whether any reasonable objection exists that would preclude the distribution of 60% of the 2015 satellite royalty funds to the Allocation Phase Claimants. Parties objecting to the proposed partial distribution must advise the Judges of the existence and extent of all their objections by the end of the comment period. The Judges will not consider any objections with respect to the partial distribution motion that come to their attention after the close of the comment period.

    1 The “Allocation Phase Claimants” are Program Suppliers, Joint Sports Claimants, Broadcaster Claimants Group, Music Claimants (represented by American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., and SESAC, Inc.), and Devotional Claimants.

    The Motion of the Allocation Phase Claimants is posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.loc.gov/crb.

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief U.S. Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07648 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION Sunshine Act: Notice of Agency Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Thursday, April 20, 2017.

    PLACE:

    Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street (All visitors must use Diagonal Road Entrance), Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Share Insurance Fund Quarterly Report.

    2. Corporate Stabilization Fund Quarterly Report.

    3. Proposed Changes to Illinois Member Business Loan Rule.

    RECESS:

    11:00 a.m.

    TIME AND DATE:

    11:15 a.m., Thursday, April 20, 2017.

    PLACE:

    Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    1. Share Insurance Appeal. Closed pursuant to Exemption (6).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, Telephone: 703-518-6304.

    Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07801 Filed 4-13-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    NAME AND COMMITTEE CODE:

    Proposal Review Panel for Computing and Communication Foundations—Expeditions in Computing (EIC) Program (#1192) Site Visit.

    DATE AND TIME:

    May 12, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m.

    PLACE:

    Boston University, Photonics Center, 8 St. Mary's Street, Boston, MA 02215.

    TYPE OF MEETING:

    Part-Open.

    CONTACT PERSON:

    Mitra Basu, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 1115, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone: (703) 292-8910.

    PURPOSE OF MEETING:

    Site visit to assess the progress of the EIC Award: CCF- 1522074, “Collaborative Research: Evolvable Living Computing—Understanding and Quantifying Synthetic Biological Systems' Applicability, Performance, and Limits”, and to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the project.

    Agenda Friday, May 12, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:30 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.: OPEN.

    Presentations by Awardee Institution, faculty staff and students, to Site Team and NSF Staff. Discussions and question and answer sessions.

    1:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.: CLOSED.

    Response and feedback to presentations by Site Team and NSF Staff. Discussions and question and answer sessions. Draft report on education and research activities. Complete written site visit report with preliminary recommendations.

    REASON FOR CLOSING:

    The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site review include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the review. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Date: April 12, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07678 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Radio Receiver Systems: R&D Innovation Needs and Impacts on Technology Policy AGENCY:

    The National Coordination Office (NCO) for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD), National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    This workshop will focus on spectrum sharing radio receiver systems and will provide a forum for information exchange and the identification of relevant research and development opportunities.

    DATES:

    The workshop will take place on May 5, 2017 from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    The workshop will take place at the National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Participation in the workshop is by invitation only. Seating for observers is limited and will be available on a first come first served basis. This event will also be webcast. The event agenda and information about the webcast will be available the week of the event at: https://www.nitrd.gov/nitrdgroups/index.php?title=WSRD_Workshop_IX.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wendy Wigen at 703-292-4873 or [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview: This notice is issued by the National Coordination Office for the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program. Agencies of the NITRD Program are holding a workshop of experts from government, private industry, and academia to provide a forum for information exchange on spectrum sharing radio receiver systems and identify relevant research and development opportunities. Further information about the NITRD may be found at: https://www.nitrd.gov.

    Background: Principles of co-existence and interference tolerance are often overlooked and under-exploited in today's radio receiver systems. For example, a receiver's ability to accept wanted signals or reject unwanted signals impacts the quality of the information transmitted. The workshop will address various signal reception topics including technology advances for receivers, transmitters, filters, antenna design, signal processing techniques, and policy issues. While focus has been on the transmitter side of the radio system in the past, focusing on the receiver systems early in the next generation technology development process has been identified as an important step in assuring interference tolerance.

    Workshop Goals:

    • Outline the wireless spectrum sharing receiver needs, scenarios and issues for the short-term and long-term.

    • Discuss the technology and regulatory frameworks that can deliver appropriate receiver solutions, including those needed for emerging IoT scenarios.

    • Identify innovative tools, techniques, experimentation, and recommendations for additional research.

    Workshop Objectives: The objectives of the workshop are to establish the current state-of-the-art, define characteristics that are needed in the radio receiver system to better facilitate spectrum sharing, identify the opportunities and challenges in current receiver technologies, and examine the implementation and adoption issues that exist.

    Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on April 12, 2017.

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07645 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Joint Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittees on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittees on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena and Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment will hold a joint, follow-up meeting on April 18, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.

    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Tuesday, April 18, 2017—10:45 a.m. Until 12:30 p.m.

    The Subcommittees will review the staff's Draft Safety Evaluation Report Regarding South Texas Project's GSI-191 risk-informed license amendment request. The staff will answer questions from the Subcommittees. The Subcommittees will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the Licensee, NRC staff and other interested persons regarding this matter. The Subcommittees will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Derek Widmayer (Telephone 301-415-5375 or Email [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2016, (81 FR 71543).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: April 7, 2017. Michael Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07704 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0091] Regulatory Analysis Guidelines AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Draft NUREG; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft NUREG, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. NRC.” This proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058 would update and restructure the NRC's cost-benefit guidance documents by incorporating information contained in NUREG/BR-0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Handbook,” into this document and would expand the discussion of cost-benefit analyses in NRC's regulatory analyses, backfitting analyses, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses. Additionally, the update incorporates improvements in methods for assessing factors that are difficult to quantify, incorporates relevant cost estimating best practices, and includes improvements in uncertainty analyses for use in cost-benefit analyses.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by June 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-2017-0091. 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: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, 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:

    Pamela Noto, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone: 301-415-6795, email: [email protected], U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0091 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0091.

    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] For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the “Availability of Documents” section.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0091 in your comment submission.

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

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

    II. Discussion

    The proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058 is the first of two phases to update the NRC's cost-benefit guidance documents, primarily NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. NRC,” and NUREG/BR-0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Handbook.” This update identifies potential changes to current methods and tools related to performing cost-benefit analyses in support of regulatory analyses, backfitting analyses, and environmental analyses.

    In response to questions posed after the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan, the NRC staff recommended enhancing the currency and consistency of the existing regulatory framework through updates to cost-benefit analysis guidance documents, including aligning cost-benefit guidance across the agency in both reactor and materials program areas in SECY-12-0110, “Consideration of Economic Consequences in the NRC's Regulatory Framework.” In the staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-12-0110, the Commission approved this recommendation and directed the NRC staff to identify potential changes to current methodologies and tools to perform cost-benefit analyses in support of regulatory, backfit, and environmental analyses. Further, the Commission directed the NRC staff to provide a regulatory gap analysis prior to developing new cost-benefit guidance.

    In response to Commission direction, the NRC staff prepared SECY-14-0002, “Plan for Updating NRC's Cost-Benefit Guidance;” SECY-14-0087, “Qualitative Consideration of Factors in the Development of Regulatory Analyses and Backfit Analyses;” and SECY-14-0143, “Regulatory Gap Analysis of the NRC's Cost-Benefit Guidance and Practices.” Further details regarding these documents are provided below.

    In response to the SRM for SECY-12-0110, the NRC staff wrote SECY-14-0002. The NRC staff identified potential changes to current methodologies and tools related to performing cost-benefit analyses in support of regulatory, backfit, and environmental analyses. In this SECY paper, the NRC staff recommended a two-phased approach to revise the content and structure of the cost-benefit guidance documents. Phase 1 begins to align regulatory guidance across the agency in both reactor and materials program areas by restructuring and pursuing some policy revisions. This SECY paper describes Phase 1 as a restructuring of the three main NRC cost-benefit guidance documents, where NUREG/BR-0184 and NUREG-1409, “Backfitting Guidelines,” are incorporated into NUREG/BR-0058. Because of the June 9, 2016, “Tasking Related to Implementation of Agency Backfitting and Issue Finality Guidance,” NUREG-1409 will be kept as a stand-alone document. Cost-benefit information related to backfitting will be incorporated into the proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058. Phase 1 will now consist of revising and consolidating two NUREG documents into a single NUREG; updating data, methods, and references; and addressing audit findings and case-study recommendations. Subsequently, Phase 2 will identify and discuss potential policy issues for Commission consideration that could affect the NRC's cost-benefit guidance and incorporate updates to guidance on backfitting. Phase 1 of the proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058 includes outlines for future appendices.

    The NRC staff wrote SECY-14-0087 in response to the SRM-SECY-12-0157, “Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments,” which directed the NRC staff to seek guidance regarding the use of qualitative factors. The SECY-14-0087 proposed updating the cost-benefit guidance to include a set of methods that could be used for qualitative consideration of factors within a cost-benefit analysis for regulatory and backfit analyses. In the SRM for SECY-14-0087, the Commission approved the plans for updating guidance regarding qualitative factors, including the treatment of uncertainties, and directed the update to focus on capturing best practices for the consideration of qualitative factors. The Commission also directed the NRC staff to develop a toolkit for the analyst to clarify how to consider and document the use of qualitative factors. Appendix A, “Qualitative Factors Assessment Tools,” of the proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058 provides this toolkit for considering qualitative factors.

    In 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a performance audit in which the NRC's cost-estimating procedures were reviewed. The GAO audit report, GAO-15-98, “NRC Needs to Improve its Cost Estimates by Incorporating More Best Practices,” recommended that the NRC align its cost estimating procedures with relevant cost estimating best practices identified in the “GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide” (GAO-09-3SP). The NRC staff has addressed the GAO recommendations in Appendix B, “Cost Estimating and Best Practices,” of the proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058.

    This proposed revision to NUREG/BR-0058 would make three main changes. First, the revision to NUREG/BR-0058 consolidates cost-benefit guidance that is used across the agency. The NRC staff has expanded the draft document to provide additional guidance for performing the NRC's materials licensee regulatory analyses, backfit analyses, and NEPA analyses.

    Second, this revision provides methods for assessing factors that are difficult to quantify, incorporates cost-estimating best practices, and expands on methods to quantify uncertainties. This revision provides guidance intended to enhance clarity, transparency, and consistency of analyses for the decisionmaker.

    Finally, this revision uses appendices to provide detailed technical material that is subject to change. These appendices will be issued and controlled separately to facilitate the maintenance of this information. Appendices that will be issued initially include Appendix A, “Qualitative Factors Assessment Tools”; Appendix B, “Cost Estimating and Best Practices”; Appendix C, “The Treatment of Uncertainty”; Appendix D, “Guidance on Regulatory Analyses Related to American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Changes”; and Appendix E, “Special Circumstances.”

    The NRC staff held a Category 3 public meeting on July 16, 2015, to discuss the proposed structure and changes to the NRC cost-benefit guidance in Phase 1. The NRC presentation can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15189A463, and the meeting summary can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15217A420. The NRC staff also held a Category 3 public workshop on March 3, 2016, to discuss NRC activities to improve its cost-benefit guidance including the newly developed qualitative factors assessment tools, cost estimating and best practices, and the treatment of uncertainty. The NRC presentation can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16061A139, and the meeting summary can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16084A167. Additionally, the NRC staff held an Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Regulatory Policies and Practices Subcommittee meeting on February 7, 2017, and an ACRS Full Committee meeting on March 9, 2017.

    III. Availability of Documents

    The NRC may post additional materials related to this activity to the Federal rulemaking Web site at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2017-0091. These documents will inform the public of the current status of this activity and/or provide additional material for use at future public meetings.

    The Federal rulemaking Web site allows you to receive alerts when changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2017-0091); (2) click the “Sign up for Email Alerts” link; and (3) enter your email address and select how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or monthly).

    The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons as indicated.

    Document ADAMS accession No./web link NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. NRC” ML17101A355. NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 4, “Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. NRC” ML042820192. NUREG/BR-0184, “Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook” ML050190193. SECY-14-0002, “Plan for Updating NRC's Cost-Benefit Guidance,” January 2, 2014 ML13274A519. SECY-14-0087, “Qualitative Consideration of Factors in the Development of Regulatory Analyses and Backfit Analyses,” September 11, 2014 ML14127A458 (Package). SECY-14-0143, “Regulatory Gap Analysis of the NRC's Cost-Benefit Guidance and Practices,” December 16, 2014 ML14280A426 (Package). SECY-12-0110, “Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. NRC's Regulatory Framework,” August 14, 2012 ML12173A478 (Package). SRM for SECY-12-0110, “Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. NRC's Regulatory Framework,” March 20, 2013 ML13079A055. SRM for SECY-14-0087, ”Qualitative Consideration of Factors in the Development of Regulatory Analyses and Backfit Analyses,” March 4, 2015 ML15063A568. NUREG-1409, “Backftting Guidelines” ML032230247. “Tasking Related to Implementation of Agency Backfitting and Issue Finality Guidance,” June 9, 2016 ML16133A575. AO-15-98, “NRC Needs to Improve its Cost Estimates by Incorporating More Best Practices” http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/667501.pdf. GAO-09-3SP, “GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide” http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d093sp.pdf. SRM for SECY-12-0157, “Consideration of Additional Requirements for Containment Venting Systems for Boiling Water Reactors with Mark I and Mark II Containments,” March 12, 2013 ML13078A017. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 11th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Anita L. Lund, Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07623 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD Formation of SES Performance Review Board AGENCY:

    Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board is announcing the members Performance Review Board.

    DATES:

    Effectively immediately and until April 30, 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about the formation of the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board's Performance Review Board, please contact Debra L. Dickson at 703.235.4480 or via email at [email protected], or via mail at 2300 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 1300, Arlington, VA 22201

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5 of the United States Code, requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. Section 4314(c)(4) of Title 5 requires that notice of appointment of board members be published in the Federal Register. The following executives have been designated as members of the Performance Review Board for the U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board:

    Steven M. Becker, Board Member, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Linda K. Nozick, Board Member, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Paul J. Turinsky, Board Member, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board Katherine R. Herrera, Deputy General Manager, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Timothy J. Dwyer, Member, Technical Staff, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Richard E. Tontodonato, Deputy Technical Director, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 10262.

    Dated: April 4, 2017. Debra L. Dickson, Director of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-06998 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION Approval of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules: the Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan AGENCY:

    Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Approval.

    SUMMARY:

    The Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan requested the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) to approve a plan amendment providing for special withdrawal liability rules for employers that maintain the Plan. PBGC published a Notice of Pendency of the Request for Approval of the amendment. In accordance with the provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), PBGC is now advising the public that the agency has approved the requested amendment.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the plan's complete request may be requested from the Disclosure Officer, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Suite 11101, Washington, DC 20005 (fax 202-326-4042).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bruce Perlin, Assistant Chief Counsel ([email protected]), 202-326-4020, ext. 6818 or Jon Chatalian, Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel ([email protected]), ext. 6757, Office of the Chief Counsel, Suite 340, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005-4026; (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4020.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

    Under section 4201 of ERISA, an employer that completely or partially withdraws from a defined benefit multiemployer pension plan becomes liable for a proportional share of the plan's unfunded vested benefits. The statute specifies that a “complete withdrawal” occurs whenever an employer either permanently (1) ceases to have an obligation to contribute to the plan, or (2) ceases all operations covered under the plan. See ERISA section 4203(a). Under the first test, an employer that remains in business but no longer has an obligation to contribute to the plan will incur withdrawal liability. Under the second test, an employer that closes or sells its operations will also incur withdrawal liability. The “partial withdrawal” provisions of sections 4205 and 4206 impose a lesser measure of liability upon employers who reduce, but do not eliminate, the obligations or operations that generate contributions to the plan. The withdrawal liability provisions of ERISA are a critical factor in maintaining the solvency of these pension plans and reducing claims made on the multiemployer plan insurance fund maintained by PBGC. Without withdrawal liability rules, an employer that participates in an underfunded multiemployer plan would have a powerful economic incentive to reduce expenses by withdrawing from the plan.

    Congress nevertheless allowed for the possibility that, in certain industries, the fact that particular employers go out of business (or cease operations in a specific geographic region) might not result in permanent damage to the pension plan's contribution base. In the construction industry, for example, the funding base of a pension plan is the construction projects in the area covered by the collective bargaining agreements under which a pension plan is maintained. Even if the amount of work performed by a particular employer fluctuates markedly in any given year, individual employees will typically continue to work for other contributing employers in the same geographic area. Consequently, the withdrawal of an employer does not remove jobs from or damage the pension plan's contribution base unless the employer continues to work in the geographic area covered by collective bargaining agreement without contributing to the plan.

    Although the general rules on complete and partial withdrawal identify events that normally result in a diminution of the plan's contribution base, Congress recognized that, in certain industries and under certain circumstances, a complete or partial cessation of the obligation to contribute normally does not weaken the plan's contribution base. This reasoning led Congress to establish special withdrawal rules for the construction and entertainment industries.

    Section 4203(b)(2) of ERISA provides that a complete withdrawal occurs only if an employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute under a plan and the employer either continues to perform previously covered work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement or resumes such work within five years without renewing the obligation to contribute. In the case of a plan terminated by mass withdrawal (within the meaning of ERISA section 4041(A)(2)), section 4203(b)(3) provides that the five-year restriction on an employer resuming covered work is reduced to three years. Section 4203(c)(1) of ERISA applies the same special definition of complete withdrawal to the entertainment industry, except that the pertinent jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the plan rather than the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement. In contrast, the general definition of complete withdrawal in section 4203(a) of ERISA includes the permanent cessation of the obligation to contribute regardless of the continued activities of the withdrawn employer.

    Congress also established special partial withdrawal liability rules for the construction and entertainment industries. Under section 4208(d)(1) of ERISA, “[a]n employer to whom section 4203(b) (relating to the building and construction industry) applies is liable for a partial withdrawal only if the employer's obligation to contribute under the plan is continued for no more than an insubstantial portion of its work in the craft and area jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions are required.” Under section 4208(d)(2) of ERISA, “[a]n employer to whom section 4203(c) (relating to the entertainment industry) applies shall have no liability for a partial withdrawal except under the conditions and to the extent prescribed by the [PBGC] by regulation.”

    Section 4203(f) of ERISA provides that PBGC may prescribe regulations under which plans that are not in the construction industry may be amended to use special withdrawal liability rules similar to those that apply to construction plans. Under the statute, the regulations shall permit the use of special withdrawal liability rules only in industries that PBGC determines have characteristics that would make use of the special withdrawal liability rules appropriate. ERISA section 4203(f)(2)(A). In addition, each plan application must show that the special rule will not pose a significant risk to the PBGC. ERISA section 4203(f)(2)(B). Section 4208(e)(3) of ERISA provides that a plan may adopt rules for the reduction or elimination of partial withdrawal liability—under regulations prescribed by PBGC—subject to PBGC's determination that such rules are consistent with the purpose of ERISA.

    PBGC's regulation on Extension of Special Withdrawal Liability Rules (29 CFR part 4203) prescribes the procedures a multiemployer plan must follow to request PBGC approval of a plan amendment that establishes special complete or partial withdrawal liability rules. The regulation may be accessed on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov). Under 29 CFR 4203.3(a), a complete withdrawal rule must be similar to the statutory provision that applies to construction industry plans under section 4203(b) of ERISA. Any special rule for partial withdrawals must be consistent with the construction industry partial withdrawal provisions.

    Each request for approval of a plan amendment establishing special withdrawal liability rules must provide PBGC with detailed financial and actuarial data about the plan. In addition, the applicant must provide PBGC with information about the effects of withdrawals on the plan's contribution base. As a practical matter, the plan must show that the characteristics of employment and labor relations in its industry are sufficiently similar to those in the construction industry that use of the construction rule would be appropriate. Relevant factors include the mobility of the employees, the intermittent nature of the employment, the project-by-project nature of the work, extreme fluctuations in the level of an employer's covered work under the plan, the existence of a consistent pattern of entry and withdrawal by employers, and the local nature of the work performed. PBGC will approve a special withdrawal liability rule only if a review of the record shows that:

    (1) The industry has characteristics that would make use of the special construction withdrawal rules appropriate; and

    (2) The adoption of the special rule will not pose a significant risk to the PBGC.

    After review of the application and all public comments, PBGC may approve the amendment in the form proposed by the plan, approve the application subject to conditions or revisions, or deny the application.

    The Request

    PBGC received a request, dated September 16, 2011, from the Service Employees International Union Local 1 Cleveland Pension Plan (the “Plan”), for approval of a plan amendment providing for special withdrawal liability rules. Subsequently, the Plan requested that PBGC suspend review of the amendment. On January 24, 2014, the Plan requested that PBGC again consider the amendment and provided updated actuarial information. PBGC published a Notice of Pendency of the Request for Approval of the amendment on August 19, 2015 (80 FR 50339). PBGC's summary of the actuarial reports provided by the Plan may be accessed on PBGC's Web site (https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/pg/other/guidance/multiemployer-notices.html).

    The Plan is a multiemployer pension plan covering the commercial building cleaning and security industries in the greater Cleveland, Ohio area. The Plan represents in its submission that the industry for which the rule is requested—the commercial building cleaning industry—has characteristics similar to those of the construction industry. According to the Plan's submission, the principal similarity is that when a contributing employer's contract to clean a building expires, the cleaning work will generally continue to be performed by employees covered by the Plan, irrespective of the employer retained to perform the cleaning services. Under the proposed amendment, a complete withdrawal of an employer whose employees perform substantially all work in the commercial building cleaning industry will occur only when: (a) The employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute under the Plan and (b) the employer continues to perform work in the jurisdiction of the Plan of the type for which contributions were previously required or resumes such work within five years after the date on which the obligation to contribute under the plan ceases and does not renew the obligation at the time of the resumption. Additionally, the proposed amendment provides that a withdrawal from the Plan occurs if an employer sells or otherwise transfers a substantial portion of its business or assets to another individual or entity that performs work in the jurisdiction of the Plan of the type for which contributions are required without having an obligation to make contributions to the Plan. In the case of termination by mass withdrawal (within the meaning of ERISA section 4041A(a)(2)), the proposed amendment provides that section 4203(b)(3), permitting a construction employer to resume covered work after three years of withdrawal instead of the standard five-year restriction, is not applicable to withdrawing commercial building cleaning industry employers. Therefore, in the event of a mass withdrawal, there is still a five-year restriction on resuming covered work in the jurisdiction of the Plan.

    The request includes the actuarial data on which the Plan relies to support its contention that the amendment will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system under Title IV of ERISA. The Plan submitted actuarial valuation reports for Plan years 2007-2014. Although the Plan's financial condition deteriorated after the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Plan immediately took action to increase employer contributions, by diverting contributions allocated to other employee benefit plans.1 In 2011, the Plan's funding percentage and other tests of financial health placed the Plan in the Green zone (strongest category) and the Plan has been in the Green zone since.2 Although the number of active participants in the Plan dropped 19% between 2007 and 2013 (while retirees decreased 6%), contributions increased 13% over the same time period.3 To date, the Plan's active participant base remains solid—about 36% of the participant population—and contributions remain steady.

    1 Under the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), the Plan would have certified as in critical status (Red zone) in 2009, but instead elected to freeze its 2008 Green zone status for one year pursuant to the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA).

    2 Updated actuarial information became available after the Notice of Pendency, and PBGC reviewed 5500s and Actuarial Valuation Reports for Plan years 2015-2016, which confirmed the Plan was still in the Green zone.

    3 During Plan years 2014-2016, active participants decreased by another 5% (while retirees decreased 6%). The number of separated vested participants increased in recent years, but the average monthly benefit of these participants is less than the average monthly benefit of the current retiree population. Additionally, the updated actuarial information demonstrates a commitment to sustained contributions, as evidenced by a 5% increase in the average employer contribution rate between 2013 and 2015.

    Decision on the Proposed Amendment

    The statute and the implementing regulation state that PBGC must make two factual determinations before it approves a request for an amendment that adopts a special withdrawal liability rule. ERISA section 4203(f); 29 CFR 4203.5(a). First, on the basis of a showing by the plan, PBGC must determine that the amendment will apply to an industry that has characteristics that would make use of the special rules appropriate. Second, PBGC must determine that the plan amendment will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. PBGC's discussion on each of those issues follows. After review of the record submitted by the Plan, and having received no public comments, PBGC has entered the following determinations.

    1. What is the nature of the industry?

    In determining whether an industry has the characteristics that would make an amendment to special rules appropriate, an important line of inquiry is the extent to which the Plan's contribution base resembles that found in the construction industry. This threshold question requires consideration of the effect of employer withdrawals on the Plan's contribution base.

    As the Plan has asserted, covered work must be performed at a commercial building located in the Cleveland, Ohio region. The work is local in nature and generally continues to be covered by the Plan regardless of the employer retained to do those services. An employer ceases to have an obligation to contribute when it loses a cleaning or security contract because the building owner outsources the work or retains a different service provider, or when the employer closes its business due to bankruptcy, retirement, or business relocation. Over the past 10 years, cessation of contributions by any individual employer has not had an adverse impact on the Plan's contribution base. Most of the employers that have ceased to contribute have been replaced by another employer who begins contributions for the same employees at the same location for the same work. The Plan presented historical data supporting the notion that building contract employer withdrawals have not negatively affected the Plan's contribution base.

    2. What is the exposure and risk of loss to PBGC and participants?

    Exposure. Although the Plan's financial condition deteriorated as a result of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Plan sponsor took assertive actions to help the Plan recover, significantly increasing contributions in Plan years 2010 and 2011. As a result, in 2011 the Plan's actuary determined that the Plan's financial health placed it in the Green zone and the Plan continues to be in the Green zone to date. Active participants in the Plan decreased by 19% from 2007 to 2013 (and retirees decreased by 6%), but contributions increased by 13% over the same time period. Thus, the parties have worked to preserve an adequate cushion against market downturns.

    Risk of loss. The record shows that the Plan presents a low risk of loss to PBGC's multiemployer insurance program. The Plan and the covered industry have unique characteristics that suggest that the Plan's contribution base is likely to remain stable. Contributions to the Plan are made with respect to commercial buildings in the greater Cleveland area. Plan representatives presented data demonstrating that building cleaning contracts for covered employment under the collective bargaining agreement have changed hands approximately 20-25 times during the past 18 years, and the rate at which a new signatory employer has assumed a prior signatory employer's building contract and has hired the prior employer's employees to clean the same building is 90-92%. Accordingly, the data substantiates the Plan's assertion that the contribution base is secure and the departure of one employer from the Plan is not likely to have an adverse effect on the contribution base so long as the number of buildings covered does not decline.

    Conclusion

    Based on the Plan's submissions and the representations and statements made in connection with the request for approval, PBGC has determined that the plan amendment adopting the special withdrawal liability rules (1) will apply only to an industry that has characteristics that would make the use of special withdrawal liability rules appropriate, and (2) will not pose a significant risk to the insurance system. Therefore, PBGC hereby grants the Plan's request for approval of a plan amendment providing special withdrawal liability rules, as set forth herein. Should the Plan wish to amend these rules at any time, PBGC approval of the amendment will be required.

    W. Thomas Reeder, Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07719 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P
    POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2017-162] New Postal Products AGENCY:

    Postal Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.

    DATES:

    Comments are due: April 19, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at http://www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Docketed Proceeding(s) I. Introduction

    The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.

    Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.

    The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (http://www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of the Postal Service's request(s), if any, can be accessed through compliance with the requirements of 39 CFR 3007.40.

    The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.

    II. Docketed Proceeding(s)

    1. Docket No(s).: CP2017-162; Filing Title: Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 7 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: April 11, 2017; Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Curtis E. Kidd; Comments Due: April 19, 2017.

    This notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    Stacy L. Ruble, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07706 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 306 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-111, CP2017-159.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07630 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Express & Priority Mail Contract 45 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-113, CP2017-161.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07629 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 305 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-110, CP2017-158.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07631 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Product Change—Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement AGENCY:

    Postal ServiceTM.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

    DATES:

    Effective date: April 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on April 10, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 307 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-112, CP2017-160.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07628 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for Comments

    Summary: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and approval by OIRA ensures that we impose appropriate paperwork burdens.

    The RRB invites comments on the proposed collections of information to determine (1) the practical utility of the collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information that is the subject of collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments to the RRB or OIRA must contain the OMB control number of the ICR. For proper consideration of your comments, it is best if the RRB and OIRA receive them within 30 days of the publication date.

    1. Title and purpose of information collection: RUIA Investigations and Continuing Entitlement; OMB 3220-0025.

    Under Section 1(k) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), unemployment and sickness benefits are not payable for any day remuneration is payable or accrues to the claimant. Also Section 4(a-1) of the RUIA provides that unemployment or sickness benefits are not payable for any day the claimant receives the same benefits under any law other than the RUIA. Under Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) regulation 20 CFR 322.4(a), a claimant's certification or statement on an RRB-provided claim form, that he or she did not work on any day claimed and did not receive income such as vacation pay or pay for time lost, shall constitute sufficient evidence unless there is conflicting evidence. Further, under 20 CFR 322.4(b), when there is a question raised as to whether or not remuneration is payable or has accrued to a claimant with respect to a claimed day(s), an investigation shall be made with a view to obtaining information sufficient for a finding. The RRB utilizes the following three forms to obtain information from railroad employers, nonrailroad employers, and claimants, that is needed to determine whether a claimed day(s) of unemployment or sickness were improperly or fraudulently claimed: Form ID-5i, Request for Employment Information; Form ID-5R (SUP), Report of Employees Paid RUIA Benefits for Every Day in Month Reported as Month of Creditable Service; and Form UI-48, Statement Regarding Benefits Claimed for Days Worked. Completion is voluntary. One response is requested of each respondent.

    To qualify for unemployment or sickness benefits payable under Section 2 of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), a railroad employee must have certain qualifying earnings in the applicable base year. In addition, to qualify for extended or accelerated benefits under Section 2 of the RUIA, a railroad employee who has exhausted his or her rights to normal benefits must have at least 10 years of railroad service (under certain conditions, military service may be credited as months of railroad service). Accelerated benefits are unemployment or sickness benefits that are payable to a railroad employee before the regular July 1 beginning date of a benefit year if an employee has 10 or more years of service and is not qualified for benefits in the current benefit year.

    During the RUIA claims review process, the RRB may determine that unemployment or sickness benefits cannot be awarded because RRB records show insufficient qualifying service and/or compensation. When this occurs, the RRB allows the claimant the opportunity to provide additional information if they believe that the RRB service and compensation records are incorrect.

    Depending on the circumstances, the RRB provides the following forms to obtain information needed to determine if a claimant has sufficient service or compensation to qualify for unemployment or sickness benefits. Form UI-9, Statement of Employment and Wages; Form UI-44, Claim for Credit for Military Service; Form ID-4U, Advising of Service/Earnings Requirements for Unemployment Benefits; and Form ID-4X, Advising of Service/Earnings Requirements for Sickness Benefits. Completion of these forms is required to obtain or retain a benefit. One response is required of each respondent.

    Previous Requests for Comments: The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (82 FR 9249 on February 3, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments.

    Information Collection Request (ICR)

    Title: RUIA Investigations and Continuing Entitlement.

    OMB Control Number: 3220-0025.

    Forms submitted: UI-9, UI-23, UI-44, UI-48, ID-4U, ID-4X, ID-5I, ID-5R (SUP).

    Type of request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected public: Private Sector; Businesses or other for profits.

    Abstract: The information collection has two purposes. When RRB records indicate that railroad service and/or compensation is insufficient to qualify a claimant for unemployment or sickness benefits, the RRB obtains information needed to reconcile the compensation and/or service on record with that claimed by the employee. Other forms in the collection allow the RRB to determine whether unemployment or sickness benefits were improperly obtained.

    Changes proposed: The RRB proposes no changes to the forms in this collection.

    The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:

    Form number Annual
  • responses
  • Time
  • (minutes)
  • Burden
  • (hours)
  • UI-9 69 10 11 UI-44 10 5 1 UI-48 14 12 3 ID-4U 35 5 3 ID-4X 25 5 2 ID-5i 1,050 15 262 ID-5R (SUP) 400 10 67 Total 1,603 349

    2. Title and Purpose of information collection: Self-Employment/Corporate Officer Work and Earnings Monitoring; OMB 3220-0202.

    Section 2 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA) provides for the payment of disability annuities to qualified employees. Section 2 also provides that if the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) receives a report of an annuitant working for a railroad or earning more than prescribed dollar amounts from either nonrailroad employment or self-employment, the annuity is no longer payable, or can be reduced, for the months worked. The regulations related to the nonpayment or reduction of the annuity by reason of work are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.160-164.

    Some activities claimed by the applicant as “self-employment” may actually be employment for someone else (e.g., training officer, consultant, salesman). 20 CFR 216.22(c) states, for example, that an applicant is considered an employee, and not self-employed, when acting as a corporate officer, since the corporation is the applicant's employer. Whether the RRB classifies a particular activity as self-employment or as work for an employer depends upon the circumstances in each case. The circumstances are prescribed in 20 CFR 216.21-216-23.

    Certain types of work may actually indicate an annuitant's recovery from disability. Regulations related to an annuitant's recovery from disability for work are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.17-220-20.

    In addition, the RRB conducts continuing disability reviews (also known as a CDR), to determine whether the annuitant continues to meet the disability requirements of the law. Payment of disability benefits and/or a beneficiary's period of disability will end if medical evidence or other information shows that an annuitant is not disabled under the standards prescribed in Section 2 of the RRA. Continuing disability reviews are generally conducted if one or more of the following conditions are met: (1) The annuitant is scheduled for a routine periodic review, (2) the annuitant returns to work and successfully completes a trial work period, (3) substantial earnings are posted to the annuitant's wage record, or (4) information is received from the annuitant or a reliable source that the annuitant has recovered or returned to work. Provisions relating to when and how often the RRB conducts disability reviews are prescribed in 20 CFR 220.186.

    To enhance program integrity activities, the RRB utilizes Form G-252, Self-Employment/Corporate Officer Work and Earnings Monitoring. Form G-252 obtains information from a disability annuitant who either claims to be self-employed or a corporate officer, or who the RRB determines to be self-employed or a corporate officer after a continuing disability review. The continuing disability review may be prompted by a report of work, return to railroad service, an allegation of a medical improvement or a routine disability review call-up. The information gathered is used to determine entitlement and/or continued entitlement to, and the amount of, the disability annuity, as prescribed in 20 CFR 220.176. Completion is required to retain benefits. One response is required of each respondent.

    Previous Requests for Comments: The RRB has already published the initial 60-day notice (82 FR 9250 on February 3, 2017) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That request elicited no comments.

    Information Collection Request (ICR)

    Title: Self-Employment/Corporate Officer Work and Earnings Monitoring.

    OMB Control Number: 3220-0202.

    Form(s) submitted: G-252.

    Type of request: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Affected public: Individuals or Households.

    Abstract: To determine entitlement or continued entitlement to a disability annuity, the RRB will obtain information from disability annuitants who claim to be self-employed or a corporate officer or who the RRB determines to be self-employed or a corporate officer after a continuing disability review.

    Changes proposed: The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-252.

    The burden estimate for the ICR is as follows:

    Form number Annual
  • responses
  • Time
  • (minutes)
  • Burden
  • (hours)
  • G-252 100 20 33 Total 100 33

    Additional Information or Comments: Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Dana Hickman at (312) 751-4981 or [email protected]

    Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Brian Foster, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275 or [email protected] and to the OMB Desk Officer for the RRB, Fax: 202-395-6974, Email address: [email protected]

    Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07632 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80428; File No. SR-BOX-2017-10] Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Expand the Execution Range for a Customer Cross Order April 11, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 29, 2017, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 expand the execution range for a Customer Cross Order. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

    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 self-regulatory organization 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 self-regulatory organization 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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Same as Item 3a in the 19b-4 Purpose section. [sic] Make sure all the footnotes copy correctly. [sic] The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7110(c)(5) (Customer Cross Order) to expand the execution range for a Customer Cross Order. This is a competitive filing that is based on the rules of another exchange.3

    3See MIAX Rule 515(h)(1). The Exchange is not copying all aspects of MIAX Rule 515(h)(1). Specifically, BOX is not copying the references to a liquidity refresh pause or route timer because the Exchange does not offer these functionalities.

    A Customer Cross Order is comprised of a non-Professional, Public Customer Order to buy and a non-Professional, Public Customer Order to sell at the same price and for the same quantity.4 Rule 7110(c)(5) provides that Customer Cross Orders are automatically executed upon entry provided that the execution is between the best bid and offer on BOX and will not trade through the NBBO. Customer Cross Orders are automatically canceled if they cannot be executed. Customer Cross Orders may only be entered in the regular trading increments applicable to the options classes under Rule 7050. IM-7140-1 5 applies to the entry and execution of Customer Cross Orders.

    4See Rule 7110(c)(5).

    5 This Rule prevents an Options Participant executing agency orders to increase its economic gain from trading against the order without first giving other trading interest on BOX an opportunity to trade with the agency order pursuant to Rule 7150 (Price Improvement Period), Rule 7245 (Complex Order Price Improvement Period) or Rule 7270 (Block Trades). However, the Exchange recognizes that it may be possible for an Options Participant to establish a relationship with a Customer or other person (including affiliates) to deny agency orders the opportunity to interact on BOX and to realize similar economic benefits as it would achieve by executing agency orders as principal. It will be a violation of this Rule for an Options Participant to circumvent this Rule by providing an opportunity for a Customer or other person (including affiliates) to execute against agency orders handled by the Options Participant immediately upon their entry into the Trading Host.

    The Exchange is now proposing to expand the execution range for Customer Cross Orders. Specifically, a Customer Cross Order will automatically execute if the execution price is at or between the best bid and offer on BOX, provided that it is not at the same price as a Public Customer Order on the BOX Book. This is opposed to the current requirement that the execution price be strictly between the best bid and offer on BOX. The requirement that the Customer Cross Order not trade through the NBBO will remain the same. The Exchange notes this is the same execution parameters of another exchange.6

    6See supra, note 3.

    The following examples are designed to illustrate the current behavior of a Customer Cross Order in addition to how a Customer Cross Order will behave after the proposed change.

    Example 1

    The Exchange receives a Customer Cross Order for 100 contracts in ABC at 3.13. The NBBO for ABC is 3.08-3.13. The following interest is present on the BOX Book when the Customer Cross Order is received.

    BOX Book for ABC Account Quantity Buy Sell Quantity Account MM 10 3.08 3.13 10 MM

    Pursuant to Rule 7110(c)(5), the Customer Cross Order would be rejected because the execution price (3.13) is at the best offer on the BOX Book, not between the best bid and offer on BOX. After the proposed change is implemented, the Customer Cross Order would be accepted. The Customer Cross Order will execute at 3.13 because, after the proposed change, a Customer Cross Order can execute at a price at or between the best bid and offer on BOX. Additionally, the execution price of 3.13 will not trade through the NBBO.

    Example 2

    Assume the same situation as Example 1 with the exception that the ABC sell order on the BOX Book is for the account of a Public Customer not a Market Maker. Pursuant to Rule 7110(c)(5), the Customer Cross Order would be rejected because the execution price (3.13) is at the best offer on the BOX Book, not between the best bid and offer on BOX. After the proposed change is implemented, the Customer Cross Order would still be rejected; however, it would be due to the fact that there is a Public Customer Order on the BOX Book at the execution price, not because the execution price is equal to the best offer on the BOX Book.

    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to detail the additional circumstances of when a Customer Cross Order is rejected. Specifically, the Exchange will reject a Customer Cross Order if there is an ongoing auction 7 or an exposed order on the option series. The Exchange notes that this has been in place on the Exchange for PIP and exposed orders.8 BOX now proposes to expand the rejection of Customer Cross Orders to all ongoing auctions, including COPIP, Facilitation and Solicitation Auctions.

    7 BOX's auction mechanisms include the Price Improvement Period (“PIP”), Complex Order Price Improvement Period (“COPIP”), Facilitation Auction and Solicitation Auction.

    8See IC-2012-004 available at http://boxexchange.com/assets/Informational_Circular_2012-004_Customer_Cross_Orders.pdf. In this Circular, BOX states that Customer Cross Orders are not accepted on an option instrument while there is a PIP auction in progress or while an order is being exposed for the same option instrument.

    The Exchange anticipates implementing the proposed change during the second quarter of 2017. The Exchange will provide notice of the exact implementation date, via Circular, prior to implementing the proposed change.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),9 in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend BOX Rule 7110(c)(5) to expand the execution range of a Customer Cross Order on BOX is designed to help BOX remain competitive among options exchanges. The proposal to expand the execution range is designed to facilitate transactions, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism for a free and open market to the benefit of market participants by increasing opportunities for Customer Cross Orders to execute on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable and appropriate as another options exchange in the industry has a similar rule currently in place at their exchange.11

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    11See supra, note 3.

    The Exchange believes that detailing the additional circumstances for when a Customer Cross Order may be rejected is reasonable and appropriate because it will make clear to Participants these circumstances and in turn will eliminate any potential for investor confusion.

    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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the rule change is being proposed as a competitive response to the rules of another exchange.12 The Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as the proposed rule will allow BOX to compete with other options exchanges in the industry. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues who offer similar functionality.

    12Id.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the 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 if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14

    13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    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-BOX-2017-10 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2017-10. 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 such 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-BOX-2017-10, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07634 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80429; File No. SR-ISE-2017-30] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious Errors April 11, 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 April 3, 2017, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”) 3 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“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.

    3 ISE was renamed Nasdaq ISE, LLC in a rule change that became operative on April 3, 2017. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80325 (March 29, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-25).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 720 (“Current Rule”), entitled “Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors” by adding a new Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 720.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.ise.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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.4 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76232 (October 22, 2015), 80 FR 66063 (October 28, 2015) (SR-ISE-2015-34).

    Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to complex orders 5 and stock-option orders. The goal of the process that the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges and the Exchange have agreed to propose will provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order and stock-option order transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest.

    5See Rule 722(a)(1) defining a complex order and (a)(2) definition a stock-option order.

    The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.6

    6 An exchange that does not offer complex orders and stock-option orders will not adopt these new provisions until such time as the exchange offers complex orders and/or stock-option orders. The Exchange currently trades complex orders and/or stock-option orders pursuant to ISE Rule 722.

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure between equities and options markets continue to support these distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the equities and option markets.

    Various general structural differences between the options and equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of risks for options market participants and are reflected in this proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other factors. Because options market participants can generally create new open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitate protection of transactions through adjustments rather than nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.

    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options markets. In addition to the factors described above, there are other fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer market making desks and internalizers.

    In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers—generally Priority Customers—more favorable treatment in some circumstances.

    Complex Orders and Stock-Option Orders

    As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of the Current Rule to complex orders and stock-option orders.7 The Proposed Rule deviates from the Current Rule only to account for the unique qualities of complex orders and stock-option orders. The Proposed Rule reflects the fact that complex orders can execute against other complex orders or can execute against individual simple orders in the leg markets. When a complex order executes against the leg markets there may be different counterparties on each leg of the complex order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price. With regards to stock-option orders, the Proposed Rule reflects the fact that stock-option orders contain a stock component that is executed on a stock trading venue, and the Exchange may not be able to ensure that the stock trading venue will adjust or nullify the stock execution in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error. In order to apply the Current Rule and account for the unique characteristics of complex orders and stock-option orders, proposed Supplementary Material .05 is split into three parts—paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

    7 In order for a complex order or stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error at least one of the legs must itself qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule. See Proposed Rule 720.05(a)-(c).

    First, proposed Supplementary Material .05(a) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a complex order that executes against another complex order).8 Proposed Rule 720.05(a) provides:

    8 The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single options series. A complex order may be received by the Exchange electronically, and the legs of the complex order may have different counterparties. For example, Market-Maker 1 may be quoting in ABC calls and Market-Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A complex order to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the quotes of Market-Maker 1 and Market-Maker 2.

    If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the complex order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the complex order to receive obvious or catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a complex order that is a possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first review the individual legs of the complex order to determine if one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.9 If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification.

    9 Because a complex order can execute against the leg market, the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious error the Exchange determines an individual options series was executed against the leg of a complex order or stock-option order, Proposed Rule 720.05 will govern.

    Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or the catastrophic error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.10

    10 Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any portion of Proposed Rule 720.05 will be adjusted. The execution price of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error will not be adjusted.

    To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a complex order to the Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2—Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1 is quoting the ABC calls $1.00-1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the ABC puts $2.00-2.20. If the complex order executes against the quotes of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to the Theoretical Price 11 of Leg 1 in order to determine if Leg 1 is an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule. The same goes for Leg 2. The execution price of Leg 2 is compared to the Theoretical Price of Leg 2. If it is determined that one or both of the legs are an obvious or catastrophic error, then the leg (or legs) that is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer.12 Although a single-legged execution that is deemed to be an obvious error under the Current Rule is nullified whenever a Customer is involved in the transaction, the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions. When an options transaction is nullified the hedging position can adversely affect the liquidity provider. With regards to complex orders that execute against individual legs, the additional rationale for adjusting erroneous execution prices when possible is the fact that the counterparty on a leg that is not executed at an obvious or catastrophic error price cannot look at the execution price to determine whether the execution may later be nullified (as opposed to the counterparty on single-legged order that is executed at an obvious error or catastrophic error price).

    11See Rule 720(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical Price is determined).

    12See Rule 720(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule 720 as not including a broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or Voluntary Professional Customer).

    Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the purposes of complex orders paragraph (a) of Supplementary Material .05 will supersede that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a complex order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).13 The Exchange notes that adjusting all market participants is not unique or novel. When the Exchange determines that a simple order execution is a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the Current Rule, paragraph (d)(3) already provides for adjusting the execution price for all market participants, including Customers.

    13See Rule 720(c)(4)(A) (stating that any non-Customer Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). The Size Adjustment Modifier may also apply to the option leg of a stock-option order that is adjusted pursuant to Proposed Rule 720.05(c).

    Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed Rule 720.05(a) provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). For example, assume Customer enters a complex order to buy leg 1 and leg 2.

    • Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for leg 2 is $0.50-1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market opened.

    • A split-second prior to the execution of the complex order a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at $1.30, and the simple order enters the Exchange's book so that the BBO is $.20-$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30.

    • The complex order executes leg 1 against the Exchange's best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of $2.30.

    • However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg 1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than $0.75).14 Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg 2 was $0.50-1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands.

    14See Rule 720(b)(3).

    •The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg 1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1 qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger than $0.25.15

    15See Rule 720(c)(1).

    • According to Proposed Rule 720.05(a) Customers will also be adjusted in accordance with Rule 720(c)(4)(A), which for a buy transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted by adding $0.15 16 to the Theoretical Price of $1.00. Thus, adjust execution price for leg 1 would be $1.15.

    16See Rule 720(c)(4)(A).

    • However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15 violates the limit price of the Customer's sell order on the simple order book for leg 1, which was $1.30.

    • Thus, the entire complex order transaction will be nullified 17 because the limit price of a Customer's sell order would be violated by the adjustment.18

    17 If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. See Proposed Rule 720.05(a).

    18 The simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See Rule 720(a)(2).

    As the above example demonstrates, incoming complex orders may execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a complex order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a Customer. In contrast, Rule 720(d)(1) provides that if an adjustment would result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution will not be adjusted or nullified.19 If the adjustment of a complex order would violate the complex order Customer's limit price, the transaction will be nullified.

    19See Rule 720(d)(1).

    As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule .05(a), if one of the legs of a complex orders is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Again, if any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. Additionally, as is the case today, if it is determined that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the Exchange shall take action as set forth in ISE Rule 720(e). A Member that submits an appeal seeking the review of the Obvious Error Panel will be assessed a fee of $5,000 for each ruling that is overturned. In addition, in instances where the Exchange, on behalf of a Member requests a determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any resulting charges through to the relevant Member.

    Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers the same in the context of the complex orders that trade against the leg market. When complex orders trade against the leg market, it is possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market-Makers) with respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected, and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers is more appropriate.

    Second, proposed Supplementary Material .05(b) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against other complex orders. Proposed Rule 720.05(b) provides:

    If a complex order executes against another complex order and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For purposes of Rule 720, the National Spread Market for a complex order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy.

    As described above in relation to Proposed Rule 720.05(a), the first step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely notification in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the Current Rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification.

    Unlike Proposed Rule 720.05(a), the Exchange is also proposing to compare the net execution price of the entire complex order package to the National Spread Market (“NSM”) for the complex order strategy.20 Complex orders are exempt from the order protection rules of the options exchanges.21 Thus, depending on the manner in which the systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a complex order can execute without regard to the prices offered in the complex order books or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations, reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the leg appear to be an obvious or catastrophic error, even though the net execution price on the complex order is not an erroneous price. For example, assume the Exchange receives a complex order to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts.

    20 For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00-2.00 and the NBBO of Leg 2 is $5.00-7.00, then the NSM for a complex order to buy Leg 1 and buy Leg 2 is $6.00-9.00. See ISE Rule 722. NSM is the derived net market for a complex order package.

    21See Rule 1901(b)(7). All options exchanges have the same order protection rule.

    • If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.22

    22 The complex order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts. The Exchange's best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange's best bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the complex order strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to sell the complex order strategy the Customer would receive a credit of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.

    • If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the NSM is $2.00-3.00.

    • If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts at $4.50, the complex order Customer receives a net execution price of $3.00 (debit), which is the expected net execution price as indicated by the NSM offer of $3.00.

    If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price of the ABC calls or the $4.50 execution price of the ABC puts, the execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to determine if the complex order was executed at a truly erroneous price is necessary. The same concern is not present when a complex order executes against the leg market under Proposed Rule 720.03(a). The ISE System permits a given leg of a complex order to trade through the NBBO provided the complex order trades no more than a configurable amount outside of the NBBO.23

    23See Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 722, which states, “[p]rice limits for complex orders and quotes. (a) As provided in paragraph (b)(3) above, the legs of a complex order may be executed at prices that are inferior to the prices available on other exchanges trading the same options series. Notwithstanding, the System will not permit any leg of a complex order to trade through the NBBO for the series by a configurable amount calculated as the lesser of (i) an absolute amount not to exceed $0.10, and (ii) a percentage of the NBBO not to exceed 500%, as determined by the Exchange on a class or series basis. A Member can also include an instruction on a complex order entered on the complex order book that each leg of the complex order is to be executed only at a price that is equal to or better than the national best bid or offer for the options series or any stock component, as applicable.”

    In order to incorporate NSM, Rule 720.05(b) provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule.

    For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-9.00. The complex order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM were instead $6.00-7.00 the complex order strategy would not qualify to be adjusted or busted pursuant to .05(b)(i) because the width of the NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to .05(b)(ii). Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.

    Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00-7.00 (not a wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire complex order package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule, then the complex order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule. For example, if the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-7.00 and the net execution price of the complex order transaction is $7.75, the complex order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the execution price of $7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the minimum amount according to the table in paragraph (c)(1) when the price is above $5.00 but less than $10.01) from the NSM offer of $7.00. Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.

    Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions, the Exchange recognizes that complex orders executing against other complex orders is similar to simple orders executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of complex orders that meet the requirements of Rule 720.05(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is the case under .05(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with (d)(3).

    Therefore, for purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule 720.05(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a Member submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in accordance with (c)(4)(C).24 For purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule 720.05(b), if one of the legs is determined to be a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other requirements of Rule 720.05(b) are met, all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Also, if any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    24 Rule 720(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in 200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less.

    Third, proposed Supplementary Material .05(c) governs stock-option orders.

    Proposed Rule 720.05(c) provides:

    If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the option leg that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).

    Similar to proposed Supplementary Material .05(a), an options leg (or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error. Also similar to Proposed Rule 720.05(a), if an options leg (or legs) does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. Again, as with Proposed Rule 720.05(a), where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).

    The stock leg of a stock-option order is not executed on the Exchange; rather, the stock leg is sent to a stock trading venue for execution. The Exchange is unaware of a mechanism by which the Exchange can guarantee that the stock leg will be nullified by the stock trading venue in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error on the Exchange. Thus, in the event of the nullification of the option leg pursuant to Proposed Rule 720.05(c), the Exchange will attempt to have the stock leg nullified by the stock trading venue by either contacting the stock trading venue or notifying the parties to the transaction that the option leg is being nullified. The party or parties to the transaction may ultimately need to contact the stock trading venue to have the stock portion nullified. Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order, the option will be nullified upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or by an Official acting on their own motion in accordance with paragraph (c)(3). There are situations in which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option order, but the stock leg cannot be executed. The Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's own motion.

    Implementation Date

    In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to April 17, 2017.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.25 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 26 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 27 in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many Members, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between Customers and non-Customers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. options markets generally there is significant retail customer participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional protections as compared to non-Customers.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to adjust a Customer's execution price when a complex order is deemed to be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A complex order that executes against individual leg markets may receive an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the complex order is executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of the fact that they have executed against a complex order or that the complex order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.

    The Exchange also believes its proposal related to stock-option orders is consistent with the Act. Stock-option orders consist of an option component and a stock component. Due to the fact that the Exchange has no control over the venues on which the stock is executed the proposal focuses on the option component of the stock-option order by adjusting or nullifying the option in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3). Also, nullifying the option component if the stock component cannot be executed ensures that market participants receive the execution for which they bargained. Stock-option orders are negotiated and agreed to as a package; thus, if for any reason the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot ultimately be executed, the parties should not be saddled with an options position sans stock.

    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 that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on inter-market competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.

    The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or stock-option orders intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally within each participant category (i.e., Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

    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)(iii) of the Act 28 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.29

    28 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    29 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 30 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 31 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change by April 17, 2017 in coordination with the other options exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.32

    30 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    31 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    32 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    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-ISE-2017-30 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2017-30. 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 such 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-ISE-2017-30, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.33

    33 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07635 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80434; File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-15] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees for Use on the Exchange's Equities Options Platform April 11, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on March 31, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable to Members 5 and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules 15.1(a) and (c).

    5 The term “Member” is defined as “any registered broker or dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.” See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.bats.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 parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule for its equity options platform (“EDGX Options”) to modify fees for its recently adopted Qualified Contingent Cross Orders (“QCC”).6

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79942 (February 1, 2017), 82 FR 9804 (February 8, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-11) (“QCC Filing”).

    Background of QCC

    The Exchange recently adopted functionality allowing participants on the Exchange the ability to submit to the Exchange Qualified Contingent Cross Orders, an order type offered by multiple other options exchanges.7 The operation of Qualified Contingent Cross Orders on the Exchange is substantially similar in all material respects to the operation of such orders on such other exchanges.8

    7See ISE Rule 715(j), Supplementary Material .01 to ISE Rule 715 and ISE Rule 721(b); see also CBOE Rule 6.53(u); NASDAQ PHLX Rule 1080(o); NYSE Arca Rule 6.62(bb), Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Rule 6.62 and NYSE Arca Rule 6.90.

    8See QCC Filing supra, note 6.

    Pricing of QCC Orders

    Since the launch of QCC order functionality on the Exchange on March 3, 2017, all executions in QCC orders have been provided free of charge. The Exchange proposes to amend these fees to reflect the value of the execution opportunities provided by the QCC functionality. Thus, the Exchange proposes to adopt fees corresponding to the four new fee codes that were adopted in connection with QCC, as described below.

    Fee Code QA. Currently, fee code QA is appended to Customer 9 “QCC Agency Orders”, which are QCC orders represented as an agent by a Member on behalf of another party and submitted for execution pursuant to Rule 21.1. The Exchange proposes that orders that yield fee code QA would provide the Member with a standard rebate of $0.05 per contract.

    9 “Customer” applies to any transaction identified by a Member for clearing in the Customer range at the OCC, excluding any transaction for a Broker Dealer or a “Professional” as defined in Exchange Rule 16.1

    Fee Code QC. Currently, fee code QC is appended to Customer “QCC Contra Orders”, which are QCC orders submitted by a Member for execution that will potentially execute against the QCC Agency Order pursuant to Rule 21.1. The Exchange proposes that orders that yield fee code QC would provide the Member with a standard rebate of $0.05 per contract.

    Fee Code QM. Currently, fee code QM is appended to Non-Customer10 QCC Agency Orders, as described above. The Exchange proposes that for orders that yield fee code QM the Member would be charged a fee of $0.019 [sic] per contract.

    10 “Non-Customer” applies to any transaction that is not a Customer order.

    Fee Code QN. Currently, fee code QN is appended to Non-Customer QCC Agency Orders, as described above. The Exchange proposes that for orders that yield fee code QN the Member would be charged a fee of $0.019 [sic] per contract.

    Designated Give Up Footnote

    Footnote 5 of the fee schedule currently specifies that when order is submitted with a Designated Give Up, as defined in Rule 21.12(b)(1), the applicable rebates for such orders when executed on the Exchange (yielding fee code BC,11 NC 12 or PC 13 ) are provided to the Member who routed the order to the Exchange. Pursuant to Rule 21.12, which specifies the process to submit an order with a Designated Give Up, a Member acting as an options routing firm on behalf of one or more other Exchange Members (a “Routing Firm”) is able to route orders to the Exchange and to immediately give up the party (a party other than the Routing Firm itself or the Routing Firm's own clearing firm) who will accept and clear any resulting transaction. Because the Routing Firm is responsible for the decision to route the order to the Exchange, the Exchange provides such Member with the rebate when orders that yield fee code BC, NC or PC are executed.

    11 Fee code BC is appended Customer orders represented as agent by a Member on behalf of another party and submitted to BAM for potential price improvement pursuant to Rule 21.19, and provided a standard rebate of $0.14 per share. Id.

    12 Fee code NC is appended to Customer orders which add liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot securities is provided a standard rebate of $0.05 per share. Id.

    13 Fee code PC is appended to Customer orders which add liquidity in Penny Pilot securities is provided a standard rebate of $0.05 per share. Id.

    In connection with the adoption of fees applicable to QCC as described above the Exchange proposes to add fee code QA and QC to the lead-in sentence of footnote 5 and to append footnote 5 to fee code BC [sic] in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the fee schedule.

    Implementation Date

    The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its fee schedule on April 3, 2017.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.14 Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,15 in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Members and other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls.

    14 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    15 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange's proposal establishes corresponding fees and rebates for QCC Orders. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees and rebates related to QCC Orders are reasonable and fair and equitable as the fees will allow the Exchange to continue to offer QCC Order functionality, which is functionality offered on other options exchanges, with pricing that is comparable to that offered by other options exchanges. The Exchange further believes that this pricing structure is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally to all Members. In addition, the Exchange notes that, while orders for other market participants (Non-Customers) will be assessed a fee, Customers will receive a rebate. The Exchange believes the proposed rebate for Customer QCC Orders (in contrast to the fee for Non-Customer QCC Orders) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as the Exchange and other options exchanges have generally established pricing structures that are intended to encourage Customer order flow.

    In connection with the adoption of fees applicable to QCC, the Exchange proposes to QA and QC to the lead-in sentence of footnote 5 and to append footnote 5 to fee code BC [sic] in the Fee Codes and Associated Fees table of the fee schedule. The Exchange believes this proposal is a reasonable and equitable allocation of fees and dues and is not unreasonably discriminatory because, as is currently the case pursuant to footnote 5, the proposal simply will make clear that a firm acting as a Routing Firm that routes QCC Orders to the Exchange will be provided applicable rebates based on the Routing Firm's decision to route the order to the Exchange.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to adopt fees related to QCC Orders will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange's proposed functionality is open to all market participants. Further, the proposed rule will allow the Exchange to continue to offer QCC functionality, which in turn will allow the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges that currently offer QCC Orders. The pricing is designed to be competitive with pricing on other options exchanges and QCC functionality is a competitive offering by the Exchange. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee schedule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 16 and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.17 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.

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).

    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-BatsEDGX-2017-15 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-BatsEDGX-2017-15. 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 such 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-BatsEDGX-2017-15, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07640 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80431; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-27] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Obvious Errors April 11, 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 April 3, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 1092 (“Current Rule”), entitled “Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions including Obvious Errors” by adding a new Commentary .04 to Rule 1092.

    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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Last year, the Exchange and other options exchanges adopted a new, harmonized rule related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions, including a specific provision related to coordination in connection with large-scale events involving erroneous options transactions.3 The Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges implemented with the new, harmonized rule have led to increased transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. However, as part of the initial initiative, the Exchange and other options exchanges deferred a few specific matters for further discussion.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76225 (October 22, 2015), 80 FR 66060 (October 28, 2015) (SR-Phlx-2015-86).

    Specifically, the options exchanges have been working together to identify ways to improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions as it relates to complex orders 4 and stock-option orders. The goal of the process that the options exchanges have undertaken is to further harmonize rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. As described below, the Exchange believes that the changes the options exchanges and the Exchange have agreed to propose will provide transparency and finality with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous complex order and stock-option order transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest.

    4See Rule 1098(a)(i) defining complex orders and stock-option orders.

    The Proposed Rule is the culmination of this coordinated effort and reflects discussions by the options exchanges whereby the exchanges that offer complex orders and/or stock-option orders will universally adopt new provisions that the options exchanges collectively believe will improve the handling of erroneous options transactions that result from the execution of complex orders and stock-option orders.5

    5 An exchange that does not offer complex orders and stock-option orders will not adopt these new provisions until such time as the exchange offers complex orders and/or stock-option orders. The Exchange currently trades complex orders and/or stock-option orders pursuant to Phlx Rule 1098.

    The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule supports an approach consistent with long-standing principles in the options industry under which the general policy is to adjust rather than nullify transactions. The Exchange acknowledges that adjustment of transactions is contrary to the operation of analogous rules applicable to the equities markets, where erroneous transactions are typically nullified rather than adjusted and where there is no distinction between the types of market participants involved in a transaction. For the reasons set forth below, the Exchange believes that the distinctions in market structure between equities and options markets continue to support these distinctions between the rules for handling obvious errors in the equities and option markets.

    Various general structural differences between the options and equities markets point toward the need for a different balancing of risks for options market participants and are reflected in this proposal. Option pricing is formulaic and is tied to the price of the underlying stock, the volatility of the underlying security and other factors. Because options market participants can generally create new open interest in response to trading demand, as new open interest is created, correlated trades in the underlying or related series are generally also executed to hedge a market participant's risk. This pairing of open interest with hedging interest differentiates the options market specifically (and the derivatives markets broadly) from the cash equities markets. In turn, the Exchange believes that the hedging transactions engaged in by market participants necessitate protection of transactions through adjustments rather than nullifications when possible and otherwise appropriate.

    The options markets are also quote driven markets dependent on liquidity providers to an even greater extent than equities markets. In contrast to the approximately 7,000 different securities traded in the U.S. equities markets each day, there are more than 500,000 unique, regularly quoted option series. Given this breadth in options series the options markets are more dependent on liquidity providers than equities markets; such liquidity is provided most commonly by registered market makers but also by other professional traders. With the number of instruments in which registered market makers must quote and the risk attendant with quoting so many products simultaneously, the Exchange believes that those liquidity providers should be afforded a greater level of protection. In particular, the Exchange believes that liquidity providers should be allowed protection of their trades given the fact that they typically engage in hedging activity to protect them from significant financial risk to encourage continued liquidity provision and maintenance of the quote-driven options markets. In addition to the factors described above, there are other fundamental differences between options and equities markets which lend themselves to different treatment of different classes of participants that are reflected in this proposal. For example, there is no trade reporting facility in the options markets. Thus, all transactions must occur on an options exchange. This leads to significantly greater retail customer participation directly on exchanges than in the equities markets, where a significant amount of retail customer participation never reaches the Exchange but is instead executed in off-exchange venues such as alternative trading systems, broker-dealer market making desks and internalizers.

    In turn, because of such direct retail customer participation, the exchanges have taken steps to afford those retail customers—generally Priority Customers—more favorable treatment in some circumstances.

    Complex Orders and Stock-Option Orders

    As more fully described below, the Proposed Rule applies much of the Current Rule to complex orders and stock-option orders.6 The Proposed Rule deviates from the Current Rule only to account for the unique qualities of complex orders and stock-option orders. The Proposed Rule reflects the fact that complex orders can execute against other complex orders or can execute against individual simple orders in the leg markets. When a complex order executes against the leg markets there may be different counterparties on each leg of the complex order, and not every leg will necessarily be executed at an erroneous price. With regards to stock-option orders, the Proposed Rule reflects the fact that stock-option orders contain a stock component that is executed on a stock trading venue, and the Exchange may not be able to ensure that the stock trading venue will adjust or nullify the stock execution in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error. In order to apply the Current Rule and account for the unique characteristics of complex orders and stock-option orders, proposed Commentary .04 is split into three parts—paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

    6 In order for a complex order or stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error at least one of the legs must itself qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule. See Proposed Rule 1092.04(a)-(c).

    First, proposed Commentary .04(a) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against individual legs (as opposed to a complex order that executes against another complex order).7 Proposed Rule 1092.04(a) provides:

    7 The leg market consists of quotes and/or orders in single options series. A complex order may be received by the Exchange electronically, and the legs of the complex order may have different counterparties. For example, Market-Maker 1 may be quoting in ABC calls and Market-Maker 2 may be quoting in ABC puts. A complex order to buy the ABC calls and puts may execute against the quotes of Market-Maker 1 and Market-Maker 2.

    If a complex order executes against individual legs and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, any Customer order subject to this paragraph (a) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    As previously noted, at least one of the legs of the complex order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the complex order to receive obvious or catastrophic error relief. Thus, when the Exchange is notified (within the timeframes set forth in paragraph (c)(2) or (d)(2)) of a complex order that is a possible obvious error or catastrophic error, the Exchange will first review the individual legs of the complex order to determine if one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error.8 If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification.

    8 Because a complex order can execute against the leg market, the Exchange may also be notified of a possible obvious or catastrophic error by a counterparty that received an execution in an individual options series. If upon review of a potential obvious error the Exchange determines an individual options series was executed against the leg of a complex order or stock-option order, Proposed Rule 1092.04 will govern.

    Reviewing the legs to determine whether one or more legs qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error requires the Exchange to follow the Current Rule. In accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the Exchange compares the execution price of each individual leg to the Theoretical Price of each leg (as determined by paragraph (b) of the Current Rule). If the execution price of an individual leg is higher or lower than the Theoretical Price for the series by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the obvious error table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or the catastrophic error table in paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule, the individual leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, and the Exchange will take steps to adjust or nullify the transaction.9

    9 Only the execution price on the leg (or legs) that qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error pursuant to any portion of Proposed Rule 1092.04 will be adjusted. The execution price of a leg (or legs) that does not qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error will not be adjusted.

    To illustrate, consider a Customer submits a complex order to the Exchange consisting of leg 1 and leg 2—Leg 1 is to buy 100 ABC calls and leg 2 is to sell 100 ABC puts. Also, consider that Market-Maker 1 is quoting the ABC calls $1.00-1.20 and Market-Maker 2 is quoting the ABC puts $2.00-2.20. If the complex order executes against the quotes of Market-Makers 1 and 2, the Customer buys the ABC calls for $1.20 and sells the ABC puts for $2.00. As with the obvious/catastrophic error reviews for simple orders, the execution price of leg 1 is compared to the Theoretical Price 10 of Leg 1 in order to determine if Leg 1 is an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule or a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(1) of the Current Rule. The same goes for Leg 2. The execution price of Leg 2 is compared to the Theoretical Price of Leg 2. If it is determined that one or both of the legs are an obvious or catastrophic error, then the leg (or legs) that is an obvious or catastrophic error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer.11 Although a single-legged execution that is deemed to be an obvious error under the Current Rule is nullified whenever a Customer is involved in the transaction, the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions. When an options transaction is nullified the hedging position can adversely affect the liquidity provider. With regards to complex orders that execute against individual legs, the additional rationale for adjusting erroneous execution prices when possible is the fact that the counterparty on a leg that is not executed at an obvious or catastrophic error price cannot look at the execution price to determine whether the execution may later be nullified (as opposed to the counterparty on single-legged order that is executed at an obvious error or catastrophic error price).

    10See Rule 1092(b) (defining the manner in which Theoretical Price is determined).

    11See Rule 1092(a)(1) (defining Customer for purposes of Rule 1092 as not including a broker-dealer, Professional Customer, or Voluntary Professional Customer).

    Paragraph (c)(4)(A) of the Current Rule mandates that if it is determined that an obvious error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (c)(4)(A). Although for simple orders paragraph (c)(4)(A) is only applicable when no party to the transaction is a Customer, for the purposes of complex orders paragraph (a) of Commentary .04 will supersede that limitation; therefore, if it is determined that a leg (or legs) of a complex order is an obvious error, the leg (or legs) will be adjusted pursuant to (c)(4)(A), regardless of whether a party to the transaction is a Customer. The Size Adjustment Modifier defined in subparagraph (a)(4) will similarly apply (regardless of whether a Customer is on the transaction) by virtue of the application of paragraph (c)(4)(A).12 The Exchange notes that adjusting all market participants is not unique or novel. When the Exchange determines that a simple order execution is a Catastrophic Error pursuant to the Current Rule, paragraph (d)(3) already provides for adjusting the execution price for all market participants, including Customers.

    12See Rule 1092(c)(4)(A) (stating that any non-Customer Obvious Error exceeding 50 contracts will be subject to the Size Adjustment Modifier defined in sub-paragraph (a)(4)). The Size Adjustment Modifier may also apply to the option leg of a stock-option order that is adjusted pursuant to Proposed Rule 1092.04(c).

    Furthermore, as with the Current Rule, Proposed Rule 1092.04(a) provides protection for Customer orders, stating that where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). For example, assume Customer enters a complex order to buy leg 1 and leg 2.

    • Assume the NBBO for leg 1 is $0.20-1.00 and the NBBO for leg 2 is $0.50-1.00 and that these have been the NBBOs since the market opened.

    • A split-second prior to the execution of the complex order a Customer enters a simple order to sell the leg 1 options series at $1.30, and the simple order enters the Exchange's book so that the BBO is $.20-$1.30. The limit price on the simple order is $1.30.

    • The complex order executes leg 1 against the Exchange's best offer of $1.30 and leg 2 at $1.00 for a net execution price of $2.30.

    • However, leg 1 executed on a wide quote (the NBBO for leg 1 was $0.20-1.00 at the time of execution, which is wider than $0.75).13 Leg 2 was not executed on a wide quote (the market for leg 2 was $0.50-1.00); thus, leg 2 execution price stands.

    13See Rule 1092(b)(3).

    • The Exchange determines that the Theoretical Price for leg 1 is $1.00, which was the best offer prior to the execution. Leg 1 qualifies as an obvious error because the difference between the Theoretical Price ($1.00) and the execution price ($1.30) is larger than $0.25.14

    14See Rule 1092(c)(1).

    • According to Proposed Rule 1092.04(a) Customers will also be adjusted in accordance with Rule 1092(c)(4)(A), which for a buy transaction under $3.00 calls for the Theoretical Price to by adjusted by adding $0.15 15 to the Theoretical Price of $1.00. Thus, adjust execution price for leg 1 would be $1.15.

    15See Rule 1092(c)(4)(A).

    • However, adjusting the execution price of leg 1 to $1.15 violates the limit price of the Customer's sell order on the simple order book for leg 1, which was $1.30.

    • Thus, the entire complex order transaction will be nullified 16 because the limit price of a Customer's sell order would be violated by the adjustment.17

    16 If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. See Proposed Rule 1092.04(a).

    17 The simple order in this example is not an erroneous sell transaction because the execution price was not erroneously low. See Rule 1092(a)(2).

    As the above example demonstrates, incoming complex orders may execute against resting simple orders in the leg market. If a complex order leg is deemed to be an obvious error, adjusting the execution price of the leg may violate the limit price of the resting order, which will result in nullification if the resting order is for a Customer. In contrast, Rule 1092(d)(1) provides that if an adjustment would result in an execution price that is higher than an erroneous buy transaction or lower than an erroneous sell transaction the execution will not be adjusted or nullified.18 If the adjustment of a complex order would violate the complex order Customer's limit price, the transaction will be nullified.

    18See Rule 1092(d)(1).

    As previously noted, paragraph (d)(3) of the Current Rule already mandates that if it is determined that a catastrophic error has occurred, the execution price of the transaction will be adjusted pursuant to the table set forth in (d)(3). For purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule .04(a), if one of the legs of a complex orders is determined to be a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(3), all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Again, if any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. Additionally, as is the case today, if it is determined that a Catastrophic Error has not occurred, the Exchange shall take action as set forth in Phlx Rule 1092(e). A member or member organization that submits an appeal seeking the review of the Obvious Error Panel will be assessed a fee of $500 for each ruling that is overturned. In addition, in instances where the Exchange, on behalf of a Member requests a determination by another market center that a transaction is clearly erroneous, the Exchange will pass any resulting charges through to the relevant Member.

    Other than honoring the limit prices established for Customer orders, the Exchange has proposed to treat Customers and non-Customers the same in the context of the complex orders that trade against the leg market. When complex orders trade against the leg market, it is possible that at least some of the legs will execute at prices that would not be deemed obvious or catastrophic errors, which gives the counterparty in such situations no indication that the execution will later by adjusted or nullified. The Exchange believes that treating Customers and non-Customers the same in this context will provide additional certainty to non-Customers (especially Market-Makers) with respect to their potential exposure and hedging activities, including comfort that even if a transaction is later adjusted, such transaction will not be fully nullified. However, as noted above, under the Proposed Rule where at least one party to the transaction is a Customer, the trade will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). The Exchange has retained the protection of a Customer's limit price in order to avoid a situation where the adjustment could be to a price that a Customer would not have expected, and market professionals such as non-Customers would be better prepared to recover in such situations. Therefore, adjustment for non-Customers is more appropriate.

    Second, proposed Commentary .04(b) governs the review of complex orders that are executed against other complex orders. Proposed Rule 1092.04(b) provides:

    If a complex order executes against another complex order and at least one of the legs qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1), then the leg(s) that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3), respectively, so long as either: (i) The width of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the National Spread Market for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1). If any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified. For purposes of Rule 1092, the National Spread Market for a complex order strategy is determined by the National Best Bid/Offer of the individual legs of the strategy.

    As described above in relation to Proposed Rule 1092.04(a), the first step is for the Exchange to review (upon receipt of a timely notification in accordance with paragraphs (c)(2) or (d)(2) of the Current Rule) the individual legs to determine whether a leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error. If no leg qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error, the transaction stands—no adjustment and no nullification.

    Unlike Proposed Rule 1092.04(a), the Exchange is also proposing to compare the net execution price of the entire complex order package to the National Spread Market (“NSM”) for the complex order strategy.19 Complex orders are exempt from the order protection rules of the options exchanges.20 Thus, depending on the manner in which the systems of an options exchange are calibrated, a complex order can execute without regard to the prices offered in the complex order books or the leg markets of other options exchanges. In certain situations, reviewing the execution prices of the legs in a vacuum would make the leg appear to be an obvious or catastrophic error, even though the net execution price on the complex order is not an erroneous price. For example, assume the Exchange receives a complex order to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts.

    19 For example, if the NBBO of Leg 1 is $1.00-2.00 and the NBBO of Leg 2 is $5.00-7.00, then the NSM for a complex order to buy Leg 1 and buy Leg 2 is $6.00-9.00. See Phlx Rule 1098(a)(vii). NSM is the derived net market for a complex order package.

    20See Rule 1084(b)(viii). All options exchanges have the same order protection rule.

    • If the BBO for the ABC calls is $5.50-7.50 and the BBO for ABC puts is $3.00-4.50, then the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.21

    21 The complex order is to buy ABC calls and sell ABC puts. The Exchange's best offer for ABC puts is $7.50 and Exchange's best bid for is $3.00. If the Customer were to buy the complex order strategy, the Customer would receive a debit of $4.50 (buy ABC calls for $7.50 minus selling ABC puts for $3.00). If the Customer were to sell the complex order strategy the Customer would receive a credit of $1.00 (selling the ABC calls for $5.50 minus buying the ABC puts for $4.50). Thus, the Exchange's spread market is $1.00-4.50.

    • If the NBBO for the ABC calls is $6.00-6.50 and the NBBO for the ABC puts is $3.50-4.00, then the NSM is $2.00-3.00.

    • If the Customer buys the calls at $7.50 and sells the puts at $4.50, the complex order Customer receives a net execution price of $3.00 (debit), which is the expected net execution price as indicated by the NSM offer of $3.00.

    If the exchange were to solely focus on the $7.50 execution price of the ABC calls or the $4.50 execution price of the ABC puts, the execution would qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error because the execution price on the legs was outside the NBBO, even though the net execution price is accurate. Thus, the additional review of the NSM to determine if the complex order was executed at a truly erroneous price is necessary. The same concern is not present when a complex order executes against the leg market under Proposed Rule 1092.04(a). Phlx permits a given leg of a complex order to trade through the NBBO provided the complex order trades no more than a configurable amount outside of the NBBO.22

    22See Exchange Rule 1098(h)(i), which states “Acceptable Complex Execution (“ACE”) Parameter. The ACE Parameter defines a price range outside of which a Complex Order will not be executed. The ACE Parameter is either a percentage or number defined by the Exchange and may be set at a different percentage or number for Complex Orders where one of the components is the underlying security. The ACE Parameter price range is based on the cNBBO at the time an order would be executed. A Complex Order to sell will not be executed at a price that is lower than the cNBBO bid by more than the ACE Parameter. A Complex Order to buy will not be executed at a price that is higher than the cNBBO offer by more than the ACE Parameter. A Complex Order or a portion of a Complex Order that cannot be executed within the ACE Parameter pursuant to this rule will be placed on the CBOOK. The Exchange will issue an Options Trader Alert (“OTA”) to membership indicating the issue-by-issue ACE Parameters. The Exchange will also maintain a list of ACE Parameters on its Web site.”

    In order to incorporate NSM, Rule 1092.04(b) provides that if the Exchange determines that a leg or legs does qualify as on obvious or catastrophic error, the leg or legs will be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule, so long as either: (i) The width of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction was equal to or greater than the amount set forth in the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule or (ii) the net execution price of the complex order is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount shown in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule.

    For example, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error and the width of the NSM of the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-9.00. The complex order will qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the wide quote table of paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule indicates that the minimum amount is $1.50 for a bid price between $5.00 to $10.00. If the NSM were instead $6.00-7.00 the complex order strategy would not qualify to be adjusted or busted pursuant to .04(b)(i) because the width of the NSM is $1.00, which is less than the required $1.50. However, the execution may still qualify to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule pursuant to .04(b)(ii). Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.

    Again, assume an individual leg or legs qualifies as an obvious or catastrophic error as described above. If the NSM is $6.00-7.00 (not a wide quote pursuant to the wide quote table in paragraph (b)(3) of the Current Rule) but the execution price of the entire complex order package (i.e., the net execution price) is higher (lower) than the offer (bid) of the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction by an amount equal to at least the amount in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of the Current Rule, then the complex order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) or (d)(3) of the Current Rule. For example, if the NSM for the complex order strategy just prior to the erroneous transaction is $6.00-7.00 and the net execution price of the complex order transaction is $7.75, the complex order qualifies to be adjusted or busted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of the Current Rule because the execution price of $7.75 is more than $0.50 (i.e., the minimum amount according to the table in paragraph (c)(1) when the price is above $5.00 but less than $10.01) from the NSM offer of $7.00. Focusing on the NSM in this manner will ensure that the obvious/catastrophic error review process focuses on the net execution price instead of the execution prices of the individual legs, which may have execution prices outside of the NBBO of the leg markets.

    Although the Exchange believes adjusting execution prices is generally better for the marketplace than nullifying executions because liquidity providers often execute hedging transactions to offset options positions, the Exchange recognizes that complex orders executing against other complex orders is similar to simple orders executing against other simple orders because both parties are able to review the execution price to determine whether the transaction may have been executed at an erroneous price. Thus, for purposes of complex orders that meet the requirements of Rule 1092.04(b), the Exchange proposes to apply the Current Rule and adjust or bust obvious errors in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) (as opposed to applying paragraph (c)(4)(A) as is the case under .04(a)) and catastrophic errors in accordance with (d)(3).

    Therefore, for purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule 1092.04(b), if one of the legs is determined to be an obvious error under paragraph (c)(1), all Customer transactions will be nullified, unless a member or member organization submits 200 or more Customer transactions for review in accordance with (c)(4)(C).23 For purposes of complex orders under Proposed Rule 1092.04(b), if one of the legs is determined to be a catastrophic error under paragraph (d)(3) and all of the other requirements of Rule 1092.04(b) are met, all market participants will be adjusted in accordance with the table set forth in (d)(3). Again, however, pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the transaction will be nullified if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s). Also, if any leg of a complex order is nullified, the entire transaction is nullified.

    23 Rule 1092(c)(4)(C) also requires the orders resulting in 200 or more Customer transactions to have been submitted during the course of 2 minutes or less.

    Third, proposed Commentary .04(c) governs stock-option orders.

    Proposed Rule 1092.04(c) provides:

    If the option leg of a stock-option order qualifies as an Obvious Error under paragraph (c)(1) or a Catastrophic Error under paragraph (d)(1) then the option leg that is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. However, the option leg of any Customer order subject to this paragraph (c) will be nullified if the adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the stock-option order, and the Exchange will attempt to nullify the stock leg. Whenever a stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order or whenever the stock leg cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or in accordance with paragraph (c)(3).

    Similar to proposed Commentary .04(a), an options leg (or legs) of a stock-option order must qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error under the Current Rule in order for the stock-option order to qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error. Also similar to Proposed Rule 1092.04(a), if an options leg (or legs) does qualify as an obvious or catastrophic error, the option leg (or legs) will be adjusted in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3), respectively, regardless of whether one of the parties is a Customer. Again, as with Proposed Rule 1092.04(a), where at least one party to a complex order transaction is a Customer, the Exchange will nullify the option leg and attempt to nullify the stock leg if adjustment would result in an execution price higher (for buy transactions) or lower (for sell transactions) than the Customer's limit price on the complex order or individual leg(s).

    The stock leg of a stock-option order is not executed on the Exchange; rather, the stock leg is sent to a stock trading venue for execution. The Exchange is unaware of a mechanism by which the Exchange can guarantee that the stock leg will be nullified by the stock trading venue in the event of an obvious or catastrophic error on the Exchange. Thus, in the event of the nullification of the option leg pursuant to Proposed Rule 1092.04(c), the Exchange will attempt to have the stock leg nullified by the stock trading venue by either contacting the stock trading venue or notifying the parties to the transaction that the option leg is being nullified. The party or parties to the transaction may ultimately need to contact the stock trading venue to have the stock portion nullified. Finally, the Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock trading venue nullifies the stock leg of a stock-option order, the option will be nullified upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or by an Official acting on their own motion in accordance with paragraph (c)(3). There are situations in which buyer and seller agree to trade a stock-option order, but the stock leg cannot be executed. The Exchange proposes to provide guidance that whenever the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot be executed, the Exchange will nullify the option leg upon request of one of the parties to the transaction or on an Official's own motion.

    Implementation Date

    In order to ensure that other options exchanges are able to adopt rules consistent with this proposal and to coordinate the effectiveness of such harmonized rules, the Exchange proposes to delay the operative date of this proposal to April 17, 2017.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.24 Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 25 because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.

    24 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    25 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    As described above, the Exchange and other options exchanges are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. options exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 26 in that the Proposed Rule will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating and facilitating transactions.

    26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the various provisions allowing or dictating adjustment rather than nullification of a trade are necessary given the benefits of adjusting a trade price rather than nullifying the trade completely. Because options trades are used to hedge, or are hedged by, transactions in other markets, including securities and futures, many member and member organizations, and their customers, would rather adjust prices of executions rather than nullify the transactions and, thus, lose a hedge altogether. As such, the Exchange believes it is in the best interest of investors to allow for price adjustments as well as nullifications.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal is unfairly discriminatory, even though it differentiates in many places between Customers and non-Customers. As with the Current Rule, Customers are treated differently, often affording them preferential treatment. This treatment is appropriate in light of the fact that Customers are not necessarily immersed in the day-to-day trading of the markets, are less likely to be watching trading activity in a particular option throughout the day, and may have limited funds in their trading accounts. At the same time, the Exchange reiterates that in the U.S. options markets generally there is significant retail customer participation that occurs directly on (and only on) options exchanges such as the Exchange. Accordingly, differentiating among market participants with respect to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonable and fair to provide Customers with additional protections as compared to non-Customers.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt the ability to adjust a Customer's execution price when a complex order is deemed to be an Obvious or Catastrophic Error is consistent with the Act. A complex order that executes against individual leg markets may receive an execution price on an individual leg that is not an Obvious or Catastrophic error but another leg of the transaction is an Obvious or Catastrophic Error. In such situations where the complex order is executing against at least one individual or firm that is not aware of the fact that they have executed against a complex order or that the complex order has been executed at an erroneous price, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to adjust execution prices if possible because the derivative transactions are often hedged with other securities. Allowing adjustments instead of nullifying transactions in these limited situations will help to ensure that market participants are not left with a hedge that has no position to hedge against.

    The Exchange also believes its proposal related to stock-option orders is consistent with the Act. Stock-option orders consist of an option component and a stock component. Due to the fact that the Exchange has no control over the venues on which the stock is executed the proposal focuses on the option component of the stock-option order by adjusting or nullifying the option in accordance with paragraph (c)(4)(A) or (d)(3). Also, nullifying the option component if the stock component cannot be executed ensures that market participants receive the execution for which they bargained. Stock-option orders are negotiated and agreed to as a package; thus, if for any reason the stock portion of a stock-option order cannot ultimately be executed, the parties should not be saddled with an options position sans stock.

    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 that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on inter-market competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all options exchanges to harmonize and improve the process related to the adjustment and nullification of erroneous options transactions.

    The Exchange does not believe that the rules applicable to such process is an area where options exchanges should compete, but rather, that all options exchanges should have consistent rules to the extent possible. Particularly where a market participant trades on several different exchanges and an erroneous trade may occur on multiple markets nearly simultaneously, the Exchange believes that a participant should have a consistent experience with respect to the nullification or adjustment of transactions. The Exchange understands that all other options exchanges that trade complex orders and/or stock-option orders intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally within each participant category (i.e., Customers and non-Customers). With respect to competition between Customer and non-Customer market participants, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Rule acknowledges competing concerns and tries to strike the appropriate balance between such concerns. For instance, the Exchange believes that protection of Customers is important due to their direct participation in the options markets as well as the fact that they are not, by definition, market professionals. At the same time, the Exchange believes due to the quote-driven nature of the options markets, the importance of liquidity provision in such markets and the risk that liquidity providers bear when quoting a large breadth of products that are derivative of underlying securities, that the protection of liquidity providers and the practice of adjusting transactions rather than nullifying them is of critical importance. As described above, the Exchange will apply specific and objective criteria to determine whether an erroneous transaction has occurred and, if so, how to adjust or nullify a transaction.

    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)(iii) of the Act 27 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.28

    27 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    28 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 29 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 30 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as it will allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule change by April 17, 2017 in coordination with the other options exchanges. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.31

    29 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    30 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    31 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has also 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: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    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-2017-27 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-27. 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 such 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-2017-27, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.32

    32 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07637 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 506(e) of Regulation D Felons and Other Bad Actors Disclosure Statements, OMB Control No.3235-0704, SEC File No. 270-654

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

    Rule 506(e) (17 CFR 230.506(e)) of Regulation D under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires the issuer to furnish to each purchaser, a reasonable time prior to sale, a description in writing of any matters that would have triggered disqualification under Rule 506(d)(1) of Regulation D, but occurred before September 23, 2013. The disclosures required by Rule 506(e) is not filed with the Commission, but serves as an important investor protection tool to inform investors of an issuer's and its covered persons, involvement in past “bad actor” disqualifying events such as pre-existing criminal convictions, court injunctions, disciplinary proceedings, and other sanctions enumerated in Rule 506(d). Without the mandatory written statement requirements set forth in Rule 506(e), purchasers may have the impression that all bad actors are disqualified from participation in Rule 506 offerings.

    We estimate there are 19,908 respondents that will conduct a one-hour factual inquiry to determine whether the issuer and its covered persons have had pre-existing disqualifying events before September 23, 2013. Of those 19,908 respondents, we estimate that 220 respondents with disqualifying events will spend ten hours to prepare a disclosure statement describing the matters that would have triggered disqualification under 506(d)(1) of Regulation D, except that these disqualifying events occurred before September 23, 2013, the effective date of the Rule 506 amendments. An estimated 2,200 burden hours are attributed to the 220 respondents with disqualifying events in addition to the 19,908 burden hours associated with the one-hour factual inquiry. In sum, the total annual increase in paperwork burden for all affected respondents to comply with the Rule 506(e) disclosure statement is estimated to be approximately 22,108 hours of company personnel time.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07655 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80433; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2017-19] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Certain of the Initial and Annual Listing Fee Provisions Included in the NYSE MKT Company Guide April 11, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on March 31, 2017, NYSE MKT LLC (the “Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. 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 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 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 certain of the initial and annual listing fee provisions included in the NYSE MKT Company Guide (the “Company Guide”). The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization 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 those 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 parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain of the initial and annual listing fee provisions included in the Company Guide.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 140 to provide an exemption from the initial listing fees for any company listing within 36 months of emergence from bankruptcy and that has not had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such period. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to waive the initial listing fees for an issuer listing within 36 months following emergence from bankruptcy, so long as such issuer has not had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such period, because this will incentivize such issuers to list their security on the Exchange, which will result in increased transparency and liquidity with respect to the issuer's security, thereby benefiting investors. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the issuer, like all other listing applicants, would be required to satisfy the Exchange's listings standards as well as the other governance requirements and standards that the Exchange requires of issuers listed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that limiting the waiver to 36 months following emergence from bankruptcy is reasonable because, in the Exchange's opinion, it is a period of time that is sufficient for the issuer to proceed with its reorganization and meet the Exchange's qualifications for listing.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 141 to provide a waiver of annual fees in relation to the first part year of a company's listing if the company is transferring its listing from another national securities exchange. The Exchange notes that companies transferring in mid-year will already have paid listing fees for that year to the exchange on which they were previously listed and that the double payment the Exchange's prorated annual fee imposes on them imposes a significant financial burden and acts as a disincentive to transferring.

    The Exchange does not expect the financial impact of these two proposed amendments to be material in terms of the level of listing fees collected from issuers on the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange anticipates that only a very limited number of issuers will be qualified and seek to list on the Exchange that are eligible to qualify for the waivers. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impact the Exchange's resource commitment to its regulatory oversight of the listing process or its regulatory programs.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that each of the proposed amendments is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act,4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) 5 of the Exchange Act, in particular, in that they are designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that each of the proposed amendments is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, in particular in that each of them is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to waive the initial listing fees for an issuer within 36 months following emergence from bankruptcy, so long as such issuer has not had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such period, because this will incentivize such issuers to list their security on the Exchange, which will result in increased transparency and liquidity with respect to the issuer's security, thereby benefiting investors. In this regard, the Exchange notes that the issuer, like all other listing applicants, would be required to satisfy the Exchange's listings standards as well as the other governance requirements and standards that the Exchange requires of issuers listed on the Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it is in the public's interest, and the interest of the issuer, to provide an opportunity for the increased transparency and liquidity that is attendant with listing on the Exchange and therefore that it is reasonable to waive the Listing Fees for such issuers. The Exchange believes that the number of additional issuers that will qualify for this waiver, as proposed, will be limited. The Exchange also believes that limiting the waiver to 36 months following emergence from bankruptcy is reasonable because, in the Exchange's opinion, it is a period of time that is sufficient for the issuer to proceed with its reorganization and meet the Exchange's qualifications for listing.

    The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to limit the waiver to issuers that have emerged from bankruptcy but have not yet had a security listed on a national securities exchange during such period because, if an issuer has already listed its security post-emergence, it has already exposed itself to the requirements and transparency associated with listing on a national securities exchange, which is what the Exchange is incentivizing by waiving the initial listing fees. The Exchange also believes that this is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the goal of the waiver is to incentivize listing, and the transparency and public benefits (e.g., increased liquidity) that is attendant therewith. Accordingly, these goals would already be achieved for an issuer that has already listed on another national securities exchange post-emergence, and to waive the initial listing fees would therefore be inconsistent with the waiver's purpose.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver of the annual fees for the first partial year of listing for a company transferring from another exchange is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act in that it represents an equitable allocation of fees and does not unfairly discriminate among listed companies. The Exchange believes that the proposed waiver is not unfairly discriminatory with respect to companies that are already listed or companies that are not transferring from another exchange at the time of initial listing, because it is narrowly designed to address the fact that companies transferring from other markets have already paid annual listing fees at their predecessor market and would otherwise have an unusually large aggregate listing fee burden in their first partial year of listing. The Exchange also expects the effect of the proposed waiver to be small, as it is limited to the first part year of a transfer company's listing and a relatively small number of companies transfer to the Exchange in any year.

    Overall, the Exchange believes that instances of these waivers being granted to issuers that apply to list on the Exchange will be relatively rare. Accordingly, the Exchange does not anticipate that it will experience any meaningful diminution in revenue as a result of the proposed waivers and therefore does not believe that the proposed waivers would in any way negatively affect its ability to continue to adequately fund its regulatory program or the services the Exchange provides to issuers.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that either of the proposed amendments will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed amendment to Section 140 is designed to encourage companies emerging from bankruptcy to list as soon as possible, providing investors with a transparent and liquid market in which to trade those companies' stocks. The proposed amendment to Section 141 is designed to enable all companies transferring from any other national securities exchange to benefit from a waiver with respect to annual fees for their first partial year of listing to offset the annual fees they will already have paid for that year on their predecessor exchange. The market for listings is extremely competitive. Each listing exchange has a different fee schedule that applies to issuers seeking to list securities on its exchange. Issuers have the option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed fee change imposes a burden on competition.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 6 of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 7 thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B) 8 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    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-NYSEMKT-2017-19 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2017-19. 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 such 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-NYSEMKT-2017-19, and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.9

    9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07639 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80432; File No. SR-ISE-2017-03] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Various Rules in Connection With a System Migration to Nasdaq INET Technology April 11, 2017. I. Introduction

    On February 8, 2017, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (now known as Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE” or “Exchange”)) 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 a proposed rule change to amend various Exchange rules in connection with a system migration to Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) supported technology. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 27, 2017.4 On March 30, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    1 ISE was renamed Nasdaq ISE, LLC in a rule change that became operative on April 3, 2017. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80325 (March 29, 2017), 82 FR 16445 (April 4, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-25).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80075 (February 21, 2017), 82 FR 11975 (“Notice”).

    5 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified the proposed handling of complex orders during Limit Up-Limit Down states, proposed that All-Or-None Orders may only be entered with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel, proposed to memorialize the handling of Cancel and Replace Orders, and removed a proposed rule change regarding delaying the implementation of Directed Orders. The Exchange also clarified the reason Price Level Protection would be applied to complex orders and made other clarifying changes. Because Amendment No. 1 does not materially alter the substance of the proposed rule change or raise unique or novel regulatory issues, it is not subject to notice and comment. The amendment is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-ise-2017-03/ise201703-1677882-149321.pdf.

    II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.6 In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,7 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 foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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. As noted above, the Commission received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.

    6 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).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange proposes to amend various Exchange rules to reflect the ISE system migration to a Nasdaq INET technology.8 In connection this system migration, as discussed below, the Exchange intends to adopt certain trading functionality currently utilized on Nasdaq Exchanges.9

    8 INET is utilized across Nasdaq's markets, including The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (“NOM”), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx”), and NASDAQ BX, Inc. (collectively, the “Nasdaq Exchanges”). See Notice, supra note 4, at 11975. The Commission also recently approved Nasdaq GEMX, LLC's (formerly ISE Gemini, LLC) migration to INET. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 80011 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10927 (February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-17); 80014 (February 10, 2017), 82 FR 10952 (February 16, 2017) (SR-ISEGemini-2016-18).

    9See Notice, supra note 4, at 11975. The Exchange anticipates that it will begin implementation of the proposed rule changes in the second quarter of 2017. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11975. According to the Exchange, the system migration will be on a symbol by symbol basis. The Exchange will issue an alert to members in the form of an Options Trader Alert to provide notification of the symbols that will migrate and the relevant dates. See id. Further, the Commission has approved a separately filed companion proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's opening process in connection with the system migration to INET technology. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80225 (March 13, 2017), 82 FR 14243 (March 17, 2017) (SR-ISE-2017-02).

    A. Trading Halts 1. Cancellation of Quotes

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 702 (Trading Halts) to conform the treatment of orders and quotes on the Exchange to Phlx Rule 1047(f). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 702(a)(2) by providing that during a halt the Exchange will maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes. Pursuant to the revision, during the halt, the Exchange will accept orders and quotes and, for such orders and quotes, process cancels and modifications. Currently, the Exchange maintains existing orders and quotes during a trading halt. With respect to cancels and modifications during a trading halt, the Exchange represents that the current process on ISE will not change under the proposed rule change.10

    10See Notice, supra note 4, at 11976.

    The Exchange represents that its proposal to maintain existing orders on the book but not existing quotes during a halt would provide market participants with clarity as to the manner in which interests will be handled by the System.11 The Exchange believes that, during a trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market participants with respect to resting interests.12

    11See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    12See id.

    The Commission believes that that cancelling existing quotes during a trading halt would provide market participants the opportunity to update potentially stale quotes. Further, the Commission notes that the Exchange will process cancels and modifications to orders as well as quotes received during a halt. Finally, the Commission further notes that the proposed treatment of quotes during a halt is consistent with existing Phlx rule.13

    13See Phlx Rule 1047(f).

    2. Limit Up-Limit Down

    The Exchange proposes to replace existing ISE Rule 703A (Trading During Limit Up-Limit Down States in Underlying Securities) with proposed ISE Rule 702(d).14 Specifically, proposed ISE Rule 702(d) will provide that during a Limit State and Straddle State in the underlying NMS stock 15 the Exchange will not open an affected option.16 However, provided the Exchange has opened an affected option for trading, the Exchange will: (i) Reject Market Orders 17 (including complex Market Orders) and notify members of the reason for such rejection; 18 (ii) cancel complex orders that are Market Orders residing in the System, if the complex Market Order becomes marketable while the affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State; 19 (iii) continue to process Market Orders exposed at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material. 02 to ISE Rule 1901 and complex Market Orders exposed for price improvement pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii), pending in the System, and cancel such Market Order or complex Market Order if at the end of the exposure period the affected underlying is in a Limit or Straddle State; 20 and (iv) elect Stop Orders if the condition is met, and, because such orders become Market Orders, cancel them back and notify members of the reason for such rejection.21 Moreover, when the security underlying an option class is in a Limit State or Straddle State, the Exchange will suspend the maximum quotation spread requirements for market maker quotes in ISE Rule 803(b)(4) and the continuous quotation requirements in ISE Rule 804(e).22 Additionally, the Exchange will not consider the time periods associated with Limit States and Straddle States when evaluating whether a market maker has complied with its continuous quotation requirements in ISE Rule 804(e).23

    14 The Exchange represents that proposed ISE Rule 702(d) is similar to Phlx Rule 1047(d). See Notice, supra note 4, at 11976.

    15 Proposed ISE Rule 702(d) states that capitalized terms used in Rule 702(d) will have the same meaning as provided for in the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be amended from time to time (the “LULD Plan”).

    16See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(1). The Exchange states that its rules do not currently address the opening rotation in the event that the underlying NMS stock is open but has entered into a Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11976.

    17 For the definition of the term “Market Orders”, see ISE Rule 715(a).

    18See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(2).

    19See id. See also Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    20See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(2). If the affected underlying is no longer in a Limit or Straddle State after the exposure period, the Market Order will be processed with normal handling. See id. The Exchange currently cancels Market Orders pending in the System upon initiation of a Limit or Straddle State. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11976.

    21See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(3). ISE currently does not elect Stop Orders that are pending in the System during a Limit or Straddle State. Under the proposal, the Exchange will elect Stop Orders that are pending in the System during a Limit or Straddle State, if conditions for such election are met; however, because such orders become Market Orders, they will be cancelled back to the member with a reason for such rejection. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11977.

    22See proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(4).

    23See id. Proposed ISE Rule 703(d)(4) is substantively identical to ISE Rule 703A(c). See Notice, supra note 4, at 11976.

    The Commission believes that the proposed Rule 702(d) would provide certainty to market participants regarding the manner in which Limit up-Limit Down states would impact the opening process as well as Market Orders (including complex Market Orders) and Stop Orders. The Commission believes that the rejection of Market Orders (including complex Market Orders and elected Stop Orders) is reasonably designed to potentially prevent executions of un-priced orders during times of significant volatility.24 The Commission also notes that processing rather than cancelling existing Market Orders is reasonable because these Market Orders are only pending in the System if they are exposed at the NBBO pursuant to Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 1901 or because they are complex Market Orders exposed for price improvement pursuant to ISE Rule 722(b)(3)(iii).25 Further, the Exchange believes that electing Stop Orders that are pending in the System during a Limit or Straddle State, if conditions for such election are met, would provide market participants with the intended result.26 Lastly, the Commission notes that proposed ISE Rule 702(d)(4) is substantively identical to existing ISE Rule 703A(c), which is being deleted.

    24See Notice, supra note 4, at 11982.

    25See Notice, supra note 4, at 11982.

    26See Notice, supra note 4, at 11982.

    3. Auction Handling During a Trading Halt

    The Exchange proposes to amend certain rules to account for the impact of a trading halt on the Exchange's auction mechanisms. First, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 723 (Price Improvement Mechanism for Crossing Transactions) regarding the manner in which a trading halt will impact an order entered into the Price Improvement Mechanism (“PIM”). Today, if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the PIM, the Exchange terminates such auction and eligible interest is executed.27 The Exchange proposes to amend the current process by terminating the auction and not executing eligible interest when a trading halt occurs.28 Similarly, the Exchange also proposes to amend to ISE Rule 716 (Block Trades) to state that, if a trading halt is initiated after an order is entered into the Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, or Solicited Order Mechanism, the Exchange will automatically terminate such auction without execution.29

    27See Notice, supra note 4, at 11977. In the case of a complex order entered into the PIM, if a trading halt is initiated, the auction would be terminated and eligible interest cancelled without execution. See id. The Exchange is not amending this behavior. See id.

    28See proposed ISE Rule 723(d)(5). The Exchange is not amending the behavior of the PIM with respect to complex orders. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    29See proposed subsections (c)(3), (d)(3)(iv), and (e)(2)(iv) of ISE Rule 716. The Exchange represents that this proposed amendment represents the current process on ISE and is generally consistent with Phlx Rule 1047(c). See Notice, supra note 4, at 11977.

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to terminate the PIM auction, Block Order Mechanism, Facilitation Mechanism, and Solicited Order Mechanism and not execute eligible interest when a trading halt occurs will provide certainty to participants regarding how their interest will be handled.30 The Exchange believes that during a trading halt, the market may move and create risk to market participants with respect to resting interest.31 The Commission believes that the proposed rule provides transparency and clarity regarding the handling of these orders during a trading halt.

    30See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    31See id.

    B. Market Order Spread Protection

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 711 (Acceptance of Quotes and Orders) by adopting a new mandatory risk protection entitled Market Order Spread Protection which will apply to Market Orders.32 Pursuant to proposed ISE Rule 711(c), if the NBBO is wider than a preset threshold at the time a Market Order is received by the Exchange, the Exchange will reject the order. The Exchange will notify members of the threshold with a notice, and, thereafter, will notify members of any subsequent changes to the threshold.33 The Exchange represents that the Market Order Spread Protection will be the same for all options traded on the Exchange and is applicable to all members that submit Market Orders.34

    32 The Exchange states that this mandatory feature is currently offered on NOM to protect Market Orders from being executed in very wide markets. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11977. See also NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).

    33See Notice, supra note 4, at 11977. The Exchange proposes to initially set the threshold to $5, similar to the threshold set on NOM. See id. The Exchange states that NOM set the differential at $5 to match the maximum bid/ask differential permitted for quotes on that exchange. See id. ISE also uses a similar $5 differential. See id.

    34See Notice, supra note 4, at 11978.

    The Exchange believes, and the Commission concurs, that the proposed Market Order Spread Protection would help mitigate risks associated with trading errors and help reduce the number of executions at dislocated prices.35 The Commission also notes that the protection is similar to a mandatory feature currently offered on NOM.36

    35See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    36See NOM Rules at Chapter VI, Section 6(c).

    C. Acceptable Trade Range

    Today, ISE offers a Price Level Protection that places a limit on the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote to sell (buy) would be executed automatically when there are no bids (offers) from other exchanges at any price for the options series.37 The Exchange proposes to replace the current Price Level Protection with Phlx's Acceptable Trade Range for orders that are not complex orders.38 The Exchange states that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range is a mechanism designed to prevent the System from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.39 The System will calculate an Acceptable Trade Range to limit the range of prices at which an order or quote will be allowed to execute.40 Upon receipt of a new order or quote, the Acceptable Trade Range is calculated by taking the reference price, plus or minus a value to be determined by the Exchange, where the reference price is the National Best Bid (“NBB”) for sell orders/quotes and the National Best Offer (“NBO”) for buy orders/quotes. Accordingly, the Acceptable Trade Range is: The reference price − (x) for sell orders/quotes; and the reference price + (x) for buy orders.41 If an order or quote reaches the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range (the “Threshold Price”) without being fully executed, then any unexecuted balance will be cancelled.42 The Acceptable Trade Range will not be available for All-or-None Orders.43

    37See Notice, supra note 4, at 11980; ISE Rule 714(b)(1).

    38See Phlx Rule 1080(p). Unlike Phlx, ISE does not offer a general continuous re-pricing mechanism. See id. Accordingly, the Exchange states that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range will not include the posting period functionality available today on Phlx. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11978, n.16. The Exchange will not post interest that exceeds the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range; rather the interest will be cancelled. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11978. Orders that do not exceed the outer limit of the Acceptable Trade Range will post to the order book and will reside on the order book at such price until they are either executed in full or cancelled by the member. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11979.

    39See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    40See proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(1)(i).

    41 The Exchange states that the Acceptable Trade Range settings are tied to the option premium. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11979, n.17. A table consisting of several steps based on the premium of an option will be displayed on the NASDAQTrader.com Web site and used to determine how far the market for a given option will be allowed to move. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11979. Updates to the table would be announced via an Exchange alert, generally the prior day. See id.

    42See proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(1)(ii).

    43See proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(1)(ii). Today, ISE's Price Level Protection rule is also not available for All-or-None Orders. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11978, n.18.

    The Exchange represents that it will set the Acceptable Trade Range at levels to ensure that it is triggered infrequently.44 While the Acceptable Trade Range settings will be tied to the option premium, other factors will be considered when determining the exact settings.45 For example, the Exchange states that acceptable ranges may change if market-wide volatility is high or if overall market liquidity is low based on historical trends.46 To ensure a well-functioning market, the Exchange believes that different market conditions may require adjustments to the threshold amounts from time to time.47 Further, while the Acceptable Trade Range settings will generally be the same across all options traded on the Exchange, ISE proposes to set them separately based on characteristics of the underlying security.48 For example, the Exchange has generally observed that options subject to the Penny Pilot program quote with tighter spreads than options not subject to the Penny Pilot. Accordingly, the Exchange will set Acceptable Trade Ranges for three categories of options: (1) Penny Pilot Options trading in one cent increments for options trading at less than $3.00 and increments of five cents for options trading at $3.00 or more; (2) Penny Pilot Options trading in one-cent increments for all prices; and (3) Non-Penny Pilot Options.49

    44See Notice, supra note 4, at 11978.

    45See id.

    46See id.

    47See id.

    48See Notice, supra note 4, at id.

    49See proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(1)(iii).

    The Exchange represents that the Acceptable Trade Range should prevent the System from experiencing dramatic price swings by preventing the market from moving beyond set thresholds.50 The Commission believes that the Acceptable Trade Range is reasonably designed to prevent executions of orders and quotes at prices that are significantly worse than the NBBO at time of an order's submission and may reduce the potential negative impacts of unanticipated volatility in individual options.

    50See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    For complex orders, the Exchange proposes to continue to apply the existing Price Level Protection rule and relocate the rule from current ISE Rule 714(b)(1) to proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(4).51 The Exchange represents that the existing Price Level Protection Rule is a better protection for complex orders than the proposed Acceptable Trade Range protection because, unlike single leg orders, complex orders are not subject to trade-through protections and the Acceptable Trade Range protection utilizes the NBBO.52 The Commission also notes that the functionality of Price Level Protection will remain the same with respect to complex orders. Further, the Commission notes that the proposed Acceptable Trade Range is similar to an existing mechanism on Phlx.53

    51See proposed ISE Rule 714(b)(4). To adapt the rule so that it only applies to complex orders, the Exchange proposes to amend the Price Level Protection rule to: (i) Remove references that specifically relate to single leg order functionality; (ii) remove references to PMM handling that does not apply to complex orders; and (iii) add references to component legs to make clear that the rule applies to the component legs of complex orders. See Notice, supra note 4, at 11980. The Exchange represents that the number of price levels at which an incoming order or quote could execute when there are no corresponding bids or offers from other exchanges at any price is currently set to five per leg. See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    52See Notice, supra note 4, at id.

    53See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983; Phlx Rule 1080(p).

    D. PMM Order Handling and Opening Obligations

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate the Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) order handling and opening obligations in ISE Rule 803(c).54 As described above, with the migration of ISE to the Nasdaq INET architecture, the Exchange is adopting the Acceptable Trade Range and opening rotation functionality currently offered on NOM and Phlx, which do not contain similar requirements for the PMMs as in ISE Rule 803(c).

    54 ISE Rule 803(c) provides that, in addition to the obligations contained in Rule 803 for market makers generally, for options classes to which a market maker is the appointed PMM, PMM shall have the responsibility to: (1) As soon as practical, address Priority Customer Orders that are not automatically executed pursuant to Rule 714(b)(1) in a manner consistent with its obligations under Rule 803(b) by either (i) executing all or a portion of the order at a price that at least matches the NBBO and that improves upon the Exchange's best bid (in the case of a sell order) or the Exchange's best offer (in the case of a buy order); or (ii) releasing all or a portion of the order for execution against bids and offers on the Exchange; and (2) initiate trading in each series pursuant to Rule 701 (Trading Rotations).

    The Exchange represents that PMMs' current obligations are no longer necessary due to the introduction of the Acceptable Trade Range and proposed changes to the Exchange's opening process.55 The Exchange states that its proposal to conform the Exchange's opening process to Phlx Rule 1017 will result in an opening initiated by the receipt of an appropriate number of valid width quotes by the PMM or Competitive Market Maker, instead of an opening process initiated by a PMM.56 Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed Acceptable Trade Range functionality will continue to provide order protection to members without imposing any PMM obligations.57 The Exchange further represents that NOM and Phlx do not impose similar PMM order handling and opening obligations.58 Accordingly, the Commission believes that these changes are consistent with the Act.

    55See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983. See also supra note 9.

    56See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983. See also supra note 9.

    57See Notice, supra note 4, at 11980. The Exchange states that Phlx does not currently have similar roles for a Specialist on its market. See id.

    58See Notice, supra note 4, at 11980.

    E. Back-Up PMM

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .03 to ISE Rule 803 to eliminate Back-Up PMMs. Today, any ISE member that is approved to act in the capacity of a PMM or an “Alternative Primary Market Maker” may voluntarily act as a Back-Up PMM in an options series in which it is quoting as a Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”).59 With the technology migration, the Exchange believes that a Back-Up PMM is no longer necessary because under INET the Exchange will not utilize the order handling obligations present on the Exchange today.60 The Exchange further represents that the proposed new opening process obviates the importance of such a role because it would no longer rely on a market maker to initiate the opening process.61 Accordingly, the Commission believes that these changes are consistent with the Act.

    59See ISE Rule 803, Supplementary Material .03.

    60See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983.

    61See Notice, supra note 4, at 11983. See also supra note 9.

    F. Market Maker Speed Bump

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to establish default parameters for certain risk functionality. The Exchange currently offers a risk protection mechanism for market maker quotes that removes a member's quotes in an options class if a specified number of curtailment events occur during a set time period (“Market Maker Speed Bump”).62 In addition, the Exchange offers a market-wide risk protection that removes a market maker's quotes across all classes if a number of curtailment events occur (“Market-Wide Speed Bump”).63 ISE Rule 804(g) currently requires that market makers set curtailment parameters for both the Market Maker Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump. Today, if a market maker does not set these parameters, for each Market Maker Speed Bump and the Market-Wide Speed Bump, the System rejects their quotes.64 With the technology migration, the Exchange proposes to provide default curtailment parameters, which will be determined by the Exchange and announced to members.65 The Commission believes that this change is consistent with the Act and notes that, although the Exchange will establish default curtailment settings, market makers will have discretion to set different curtailment settings appropriate for their trading and risk tolerance.

    62See ISE Rule 804(g)(1) and Supplementary Material .04 to ISE Rule 722.

    63See ISE Rule 804(g)(2). Market makers may request the Exchange to set the market wide parameter to apply to just ISE or across ISE and ISE Gemini. See id.

    64See Notice, supra note 4, at 11980-81.

    65See Notice, supra note 4, at 11981.

    G. Anti-Internalization

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Supplementary Material at .03 to ISE Rule 804 (Market Maker Quotations) to adopt an anti-internalization rule. Today, ISE's functionality prevents Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”) orders entered by a market maker from trading with the market maker's own quote.66 The Exchange proposes to replace this self-trade protection with anti-internalization functionality currently offered on Phlx.67 The Exchange proposes to provide that quotes and orders entered by market makers using the same member identifier will not be executed against quotes and orders entered on the opposite side of the market by the same market maker using the same member identifier. In such a case, the System will cancel the resting quote or order back to the entering party prior to execution. The proposed anti-internalization functionality will not apply in any auction or with respect to complex order transactions. The Exchange states that this proposed functionality does not modify the duty of best execution owed to public customer orders.68

    66See id.

    67See Phlx Rule 1080(p)(2).

    68See Notice, supra note 4, at 11981.

    The Exchange represents that the proposal is designed to assist market makers in reducing trading costs from unwanted executions potentially resulting from the interaction of executable interest from the same firm performing the same market making function.69 The Commission believes that the proposed rule is reasonably designed to prevent the unwanted execution of quotes and orders entered by market makers using the same member identifier.

    69See Notice, supra note 4, at 11981, n.34.

    H. Minimum Execution Quantity Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to remove minimum quantity orders in subpart (q).70 The Exchange states that the utilization of minimum quantity orders by its members has been very limited, and therefore proposes to remove this order type.71 Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to remove two references to minimum quantity orders in Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 713 and in Supplementary Material .04 to ISE Rule 717.

    70 A Minimum Quantity Order is an order type that is available for partial execution only for a specified number of contracts or greater. A member may specify whether any subsequent executions of the order must also be for the specified number of contracts or greater, or if the balance may be executed as a regular order. If all executions are to be for a specified number of contracts or greater and the balance of the order after one or more partial execution(s) is less than the minimum, such balance is treated as all-or-none. See ISE Rule 715(q).

    71See Notice, supra note 4, at 11981.

    The Exchange states that the removing the minimum quantity order type would simplify functionality available on the Exchange and reduce the complexity of its order types.72 The Exchange further represents that the utilization of minimum quantity orders by its members has been very limited and is currently being utilized to transact less than 1% of the Exchange's volume.73 Accordingly, the Commission believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to remove references to the minimum quantity order type.

    72See Notice, supra note 4, at 11984.

    73See Notice, supra note 4, at 11981, n.35.

    I. Cancel and Replace Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 715 (Types of Orders) to memorialize how the Exchange System will handle cancel and replace orders in connection with the Exchange's technology migration to INET.74 Currently, Exchange members can send a Cancel and Replace Order in one message, which allows the replacement order to retain the time priority of the cancelled order, subject to certain exceptions.75 However, currently the Exchange does not apply price or other reasonability checks to the replacement order for all Cancel and Replace Orders.76 For example, the Exchange notes that currently, a Cancel and Replace Order which reduced the size of an original order from 600 to 300 contracts would not be subject to price or other reasonability checks.77

    74See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    75See id. The Exchange notes that, instead of sending a Cancel and Replace Order, a Member can separately send a cancellation message and a new order, for which the Exchange would apply price or other reasonability checks, but the new order would not retain the priority of the original order. See id. This behavior will not change. See id.

    76See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    77See id.

    The Exchange now proposes to define the Cancel and Replace Order to ensure that price and other reasonability checks are applied to Cancel and Replace Orders.78 The Exchange proposes to define a Cancel and Replace Order as a single message for the immediate cancellation of a previously received order and the replacement of that order with a new order. If the previously placed order is already partially filled or in its entirety, the replacement order is automatically canceled or reduced by the number of contracts that were executed. Additionally, the replacement order will retain the priority of the cancelled order, if the order posts to the order book, provided the price is not amended, size is not increased, or in the case of Reserve Orders, size is not changed. However, if the replacement portion of a Cancel and Replace Order does not satisfy the System's price or other reasonability checks the existing order will be cancelled and not replaced.79

    78See proposed ISE Rule 715, Supplementary Material .02.

    79 Price and reasonability checks that would be applied include ISE Rule 710 (Minimum Trading Increments), ISE Rule 711(c) (proposed Market Order Spread Protection), ISE Rule 714(b)(2) (Limit Order Price Protection), and ISE Rule 722(b)(1) (Minimum Increments for Complex Orders), and Supplementary Material .07 (b), (c) and (d) to Rule 722 (Price Limits for Complex Orders and Quotes). See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5, n.39. The Exchange also notes that, as for other orders, the Exchange may cancel an order because it does not satisfy a format or other requirement specified in the Exchange's rules and specifications. See id.

    The Exchange represents that conducting price or other reasonability checks for all Cancel and Replace Orders will validate orders against current market conditions prior to proceeding with the request to modify the order.80 The Exchange further believes that memorializing Cancel and Replace Order handling will add transparency to the Exchange's rules and reduce the potential for investor confusion.81

    80See id.

    81See id.

    The Commission notes that other exchanges with a similar order type permit an order to retain priority if only the size of the order is decremented.82 Accordingly, the Commission believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to define Cancel and Replace Order in the manner proposed.

    82See id; see Phlx Rule 1080(b)(i)(A).

    J. All-Or-None Orders

    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 715(c) to provide that All-Or-None Orders 83 may only be entered into the Exchange's System with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.84 Currently, the Exchange allows users to submit All-Or-None Orders with any time-in-force designation. As proposed, an All-Or-None Order would be required to be submitted as an Immediate-Or-Cancel Order and thus will either execute in its entirety or be cancelled. Because All-Or-None Orders will either be executed or cancelled, the Exchange also proposes to remove language stating that All-Or-None Orders can be maintained in the System in Supplementary Material .02 to ISE Rule 713 and to delete Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 717, which concerns the exposure of non-marketable All-Or-None Orders.85

    83 An All-Or-None Order is a limit or market order that is to be executed in its entirety or not at all. See ISE Rule 715(c).

    84 An Immediate-Or-Cancel Order is a limit order that is to be executed in whole or in part upon receipt, and any portion not so executed is to be treated as cancelled. See ISE Rule 715(b)(3).

    85See Amendment No. 1, supra note 5.

    The Exchange states that this change would remove uncertainty with respect to the manner in which All-Or-None Orders would be handled in the order book, because the All-Or-None Order would be canceled if it cannot be immediately executed in its entirety.86 Accordingly, the Commission believes it is appropriate for the Exchange to require that All-Or-None Orders be entered with a time-in-force designation of Immediate-Or-Cancel.

    86See id.

    For these reasons, the Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act.

    IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,87 that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2017-03), as modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.

    87 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    88 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.88

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07638 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80425; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-031] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes), Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) April 11, 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 March 31, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    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 4752 (Opening Process), Rule 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to specify the execution priority of an Order that has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Nasdaq is also proposing to amend Rule 4703 (Order Attributes) and Rule 4753 (Halt Cross) to clarify the effect of the re-pricing of an Order that has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of this proposal is to amend Rule 4752 (Opening Process), Rule 4753 (Nasdaq Halt Cross) and Rule 4754 (Nasdaq Closing Cross) to specify the execution priority of an Order that has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross.

    Rule 4752, 4753 and 4754 set forth the operation of the Opening Cross, the Halt Cross, and the Closing Cross, respectively. Each Rule specifies the manner in which orders will be executed if less than all available interest is executed as part of the Cross. Specifically, Rule 4752 states that, if the Nasdaq Opening Cross price is selected and fewer than all shares of Market On Open (“MOO”), Limit On Open (“LOO”), Opening Imbalance Only Order (“OIO”) and Early Market Hours Orders that are available in the Nasdaq Market Center would be executed, all Quotes and Orders shall be executed at the Nasdaq Opening Cross price in the following priority: (A) MOO and Early Market Hours market peg orders, with time as the secondary priority; (B) LOO orders, Early Market Hours limit orders, OIO orders, SDAY limit orders, SGTC limit orders, GTMC limit orders, SHEX limit orders, displayed quotes and reserve interest priced more aggressively than the Nasdaq Opening Cross price based on limit price with time as the secondary priority; (C) LOO orders, OIO Orders, Early Market Hours and displayed interest of quotes, SDAY limit orders, SGTC limit orders, GTMC limit orders, and SHEX limit orders at the Nasdaq Opening Cross price with time as the secondary priority; and (D) reserve interest of quotes, SDAY limit orders, SGTC limit orders, and GTMC limit orders and SHEX limit orders at the Nasdaq Opening Cross price with time as the secondary priority.

    Rule 4753 states that, if the Nasdaq Halt Cross price is selected and fewer than all shares of Eligible Interest that are available in the Nasdaq Market Center would be executed, all Eligible Interest shall be executed at the Nasdaq Halt Cross price in price/time priority.

    Rule 4754 states that, if the Nasdaq Closing Cross price is selected and fewer than all Market On Close (“MOC”), Limit On Close (“LOC”), Imbalance Only (“IO”) and Close Eligible Interest would be executed, orders will be executed at the Nasdaq Closing Cross price in the following priority: (A) MOC orders, with time as the secondary priority; (B) LOC orders, limit orders, IO orders, displayed quotes and reserve interest priced more aggressively than the Nasdaq Closing Cross price based on price with time as the secondary priority; (C) LOC orders, IO Orders displayed interest of limit orders, and displayed interest of quotes at the Nasdaq Closing Cross price with time as the secondary priority; (D) reserve interest at the Nasdaq Closing Cross price with time as the secondary priority; and (E) unexecuted MOC, LOC, and IO orders will be canceled.

    Nasdaq now proposes to amend the provisions of Rules 4752, 4753 and 4754 to specifically describe the execution priority an Order that was entered on the Nasdaq Book and has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross.

    In November 2016, the Commission approved changes to the functionality of Post-Only Orders.3 As a result of this new Post-Only functionality, Nasdaq recently amended Rule 4703 and Rule 4753 to address the treatment of an Order that and has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Nasdaq amended Rule 4703 and Rule 4753 to specify that, if an Order to buy (sell) that is entered on the Nasdaq Book is locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order, that Order will be deemed to have a price at one minimum increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only for purposes of selecting the price of the Opening Cross, the Closing Cross, and the Halt Cross.4 This functionality applies to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.5

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79290 (November 10, 2016), 81 FR 81184 (November 17, 2016) (SR-NASDAQ-2016-111).

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

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

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80216 (March 10, 2017), 82 FR 14074 (March 16, 2017) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-028) (“Cross Proposal”).

    5 As noted in the Cross Proposal, in this scenario, the Post-Only Order would have locked or crossed the Non-Displayed Order, Post-Only, Price to Comply Order, or Midpoint Peg Post-Only Order at its non-displayed price upon entry if the value of price improvement associated with executing against the Order is not met. Id.

    Nasdaq is now proposing to amend Rules 4752, 4753 and 4754 to specify the execution priority of an Order that has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. Accordingly, Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4752(d)(3)(B) to state that Orders to buy (sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book in Early Market Hours, and which have been deemed to have a price at one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time priority ahead of all orders one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order but behind all orders at the price at which the Order was posted to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing functionality will apply to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, and Price to Comply Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.

    Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4753(b)(3) to state that Orders to buy (sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book, and which have been deemed to have a price at one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time priority ahead of all orders one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order but behind all orders at the price at which the Order was posted to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing functionality will apply to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.

    Finally, Nasdaq proposes to amend Rule 4754(b)(3)(B) to state that Orders to buy (sell) that are locked or crossed at their non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order on the Nasdaq Book, and which have been deemed to have a price at one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order, shall be ranked in time priority ahead of all orders one minimum price increment below (above) the price of the Post-Only Order but behind all orders at the price at which the Order was posted to the Nasdaq Book. This re-pricing functionality will apply to Non-Displayed Orders, Post-Only Orders, Price to Comply Orders and Midpoint Peg Post-Only Orders when the non-displayed price of that Order is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order.

    Nasdaq also proposes to amend the language in Rule 4703 (Order Attributes) and Rule 4753 relating to the re-pricing of Orders that are locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for purposes of determining the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross, as described above. Rule 4703(l) describes this re-pricing functionality as occurring “for purposes of selecting the Nasdaq Opening Cross or Closing Cross price.” Rule 4753(d) similarly describes this re-pricing functionality as occurring “for purposes of selecting the Nasdaq Halt Cross Price.” Nasdaq proposes to amend both 4703(l) and Rule 4753(d) to describe this functionality as occurring for purposes of the Nasdaq Opening, Closing, or Halt Cross. Nasdaq is making this change to clarify the effect of the re-pricing functionality, since the re-pricing of an Order pursuant to this provision establishes both the price of the Order for purposes of the Cross and the execution priority of the Order as part of the Cross (although that execution priority may be modified based on the changes being proposed herein).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,6 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,7 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. This filing supplements the Cross Proposal to re-price an Order that is locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order for purposes of the Opening, Closing and Halt Cross. As stated in that proposal, Nasdaq believed that such re-pricing was consistent with the Act because it, among other things, reflected the intent of the Nasdaq Opening and Closing Cross functionality.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    Nasdaq believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act for several reasons. First, the proposal adopts a new execution priority, for an Order that has a non-displayed price that is locked or crossed by a Post-Only Order, that reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems that is necessary to fulfill a central premise of the Opening, Halt, and Closing Cross. Specifically, given the operation of the Opening, Halt and Closing Cross, Orders cannot be locked or crossed for purposes of the Cross. The proposed changes here reflect this premise, and the configuration of the Nasdaq systems that is necessary to achieve this result.

    Second, Nasdaq is proposing to rank Orders that are subject to this proposal in time priority ahead of all other Orders at that same price. While Nasdaq notes that, in certain scenarios, an Order might not participate in a Cross at its re-priced price when it might have participated in the Cross at its posted price on the Nasdaq Book, the proposal increases the likelihood that such interest will be executed as part of the Cross than if such interest had been assigned a different priority at its new price.8 Nasdaq also notes that there are instances in which a locked or crossed Order may participate in a Cross at its posted price on the Nasdaq Book.9

    8 For example, if the non-displayed price of a sell Order was entered at $10.15, and was locked by a Post-Only Order to buy at $10.15, the price of the sell Order would be adjusted to $10.16 for purposes of the Cross. That Order would now have priority over all other Orders at $10.16.

    9 Pursuant to this functionality, an Order is only re-priced at the time that the Cross price is being calculated. To the extent that a member cancels any locking Post-Only Orders prior to the calculation of the Cross price, the locked Order would not be re-priced. This might occur prior to the Opening, Closing, or Halt Cross, which reduces the likelihood that a locked Order will be re-priced and will be unable to participate in the Cross.

    Third, Nasdaq notes that re-priced Orders that do not participate in the Opening or Halt Cross remain on the Nasdaq Book, and that the proposed functionality would not impair the ability of such Orders to participate in the Regular Market Session after the conclusion of the Cross.

    Finally, this proposed change is limited to an Order with a non-displayed price that is locked by a Post-Only Order for purposes of the Open, Halt and Closing Cross. While non-displayed liquidity may enhance market quality in other ways, such liquidity does not contribute to the price discovery process in the same manner as displayed liquidity. Had the Order been displayed, the priority of the Order would not have changed, as the Order would be setting the best displayed price on the Exchange. Use of the Nasdaq systems and Order types is completely voluntary, and members may always opt to use a different Order type to achieve a different result.

    Nasdaq believes that amending the language in Rule 4703 and Rule 4753 relating to the re-pricing of an Order that is locked or crossed at its non-displayed price for purposes of the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross is consistent with the Act because it more accurately describes the effect of this re-pricing functionality as it relates to the Cross.

    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 change adopts an execution priority for a more aggressively-priced Order that has been locked or crossed at its non-displayed price by a Post-Only Order and re-priced for purposes of the Opening, Closing or Halt Cross that reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems that is necessary to ensure that Orders are not locked or crossed for purposes of the Opening, Halt or Closing Cross. To the extent that such Orders will be ranked in time priority ahead of all other Orders at that same price, the proposal increases the likelihood that such interest will be executed as part of the Cross than if such interest had been assigned a different priority at its new price. There are instances where a locked or crossed Order may participate in a Cross at its posted price on the Nasdaq Book, and re-priced Orders that do not participate in the Opening or Halt Cross would remain eligible to participate in the Regular Market Session after the conclusion of the Cross. Moreover, the use of Exchange Order types and attributes is voluntary, and no member is required to use any specific Order type or attribute or even to use any Exchange Order type or attribute or any Exchange functionality at all. If an Exchange member believes for any reason that the proposed rule change will be detrimental, that perceived detriment can be avoided by choosing not to enter or interact with the Order types modified by this proposed rule change. Finally, the proposal will apply equally to all Orders that meet its criteria.

    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 10 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.11

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    11 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act 12 normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 13 permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects the configuration of Nasdaq systems necessary to ensure that Orders are not locked or crossed for purposes of the Opening, Halt or Closing Cross, while increasing the likelihood that re-priced Orders will be executed as part of the Cross than if such interest had been assigned a different priority at its new price. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.14

    12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    13 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    14 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, 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 change 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-NASDAQ-2017-031 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-NASDAQ-2017-031. 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-NASDAQ-2017-031 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.15

    15 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07633 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collection; Comment Request Upon Written Request Copies Available From:Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 163, OMB Control No. 3235-0619, SEC File No. 270-556

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

    Rule 163 (17 CFR 230.163) provides an exemption from Section 5(c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) for certain communications by or on behalf of a well-known seasoned issuer. The information filed under Rule 163 is publicly available. We estimate that it takes approximately 0.24 burden hours per response to provide the information required under Rule 163 and that the information is filed by approximately 53 respondents for a total annual reporting burden of 13 hours. We estimate that 25% of 0.24 hours per response (0.06 hours) is prepared by the respondent for a total annual burden of 3 hours (0.06 hours per response × 53 responses).

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

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

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

    Dated: April 11, 2017. Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07656 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80430; File No. SR-C2-2017-013] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Complex Order Price Protections April 11, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 5, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.4 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.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend a current price protection related to complex orders. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed]) C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 6.13. Complex Order Execution

    (a)-(c) No change.

    . . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.03 No change.

    .04 Price Check Parameters: On a class-by-class basis, the Exchange may determine (and announce via Regulatory Circular) which of the following price check parameters will apply to eligible complex orders. Paragraphs (b) and (g) will not be applicable to stock-option orders.

    For purposes of this Interpretation and Policy .04:

    Vertical Spread. A “vertical” spread is a two-legged complex order with one leg to buy a number of calls (puts) and one leg to sell the same number of calls (puts) with the same expiration date but different exercise prices.

    Butterfly Spread. A “butterfly” spread is a three-legged complex order with two legs to buy (sell) the same number of calls (puts) and one leg to sell (buy) twice as many calls (puts), all with the same expiration date but different exercise prices, and the exercise price of the middle leg is between the exercise prices of the other legs. If the exercise price of the middle leg is halfway between the exercise prices of the other legs, it is a “true” butterfly; otherwise, it is a “skewed” butterfly.

    Box Spread. A “box” spread is a four-legged complex order with one leg to buy calls and one leg to sell puts with one strike price, and one leg to sell calls and one leg to buy puts with another strike price, all of which have the same expiration date and are for the same number of contracts.

    To the extent a price check parameter is applicable, the Exchange will not automatically execute an eligible complex order that is:

    (a)-(d) No change.

    (e) Acceptable Percentage Range Parameter:

    (i) An incoming complex order (including a stock-option order) after [all leg]the series for all legs of the complex order are open for trading that is marketable and would execute immediately upon submission to the COB or following a COA if the execution would be at a price outside an acceptable percentage range. The “acceptable percentage range” is the national spread market (or Exchange spread market if the NBBO in any leg is locked, crossed or unavailable and for pairs of orders submitted to AIM or SAM) that existed when the System received the order or at the start of COA, as applicable, plus/minus:

    (A) the amount equal to a percentage (which may not be less than 3%) of the national spread market (the “percentage amount”) if that amount is not less than a minimum amount or greater than a maximum amount (the Exchange will determine the percentage and minimum and maximum amounts on a class-by-class basis and announce them to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular);

    (B) the minimum amount, if the percentage amount is less than the minimum amount; or

    (C) the maximum amount, if the percentage amount is greater than the maximum amount.

    (ii) The System cancels an order (or any remaining size after partial execution of the order) that would execute or rest in the COB at a price outside the acceptable price range.

    (iii) If the System rejects either order in a pair of orders submitted to AIM or SAM pursuant to this parameter, then the System also cancels the paired order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with respect to an AIM Retained (“A:AIR”) order as defined in Interpretation and Policy .10 to Rule 6.51, if the System rejects the Agency Order pursuant to this check, then the System also rejects the contra-side order; however, if the System rejects the contra-side order pursuant to this check, the System still accepts the Agency Order if it satisfies the check. [To the extent a contra-side order or response is marketable against the Agency Order, the execution price will be capped at the opposite side of the acceptable price range.]

    (iv) This parameter applies to auction responses in the same manner as it does orders.

    (f)-(h) No change.

    .06-.07 No change.

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend its acceptable percentage range parameter for complex orders. In general, pursuant to the acceptable percentage range parameter in Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(e), the System cancels an incoming order 5 that is marketable and would execute immediately upon submission to the complex order book (“COB”) or following a COA if the execution would be at a price outside an acceptable percentage range, which is the national spread market that existed when the System received the order or at the start of COA, as applicable, plus/minus:

    5 The current rule states this price protection applies to an incoming order after all leg series are open for trading. The proposed rule change makes a nonsubstantive change to this provision to clarify this means the protection applies to an incoming order after the series for all legs of the complex order are open for trading.

    • The amount equal to a percentage (which may not be less than 3%) of the national spread market (the “percentage amount”) if that amount is not less than a minimum amount or greater than a maximum amount (the Exchange will determine the percentage and minimum and maximum amounts and announce them to Trading Permit Holders by Regulatory Circular);

    • the minimum amount, if the percentage amount is less than the minimum amount; or

    • the maximum amount, if the percentage amount is greater than the maximum amount.

    First, the proposed rule change amends Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(e)(i)(A) to provide the Exchange may determine the percentage and the minimum and maximum amounts on a class-by-class basis. Currently, the rule states the percentage and minimum and maximum amounts will be the same for all classes. Because of class differences such as the minimum increment and option prices, the Exchange believes it may be appropriate to set different amounts so the outside of the range is not too close or too far away from the market price for a class and ensure the range creates an effective check for all classes. Therefore, the proposed rule change adds this flexibility to the Rule. Other price protections have similar flexibility.6

    6See, e.g., Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(g).

    Second, the proposed rule change adds Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(e)(iv) to provide this parameter will apply to auction responses in the same manner as it does orders. The current parameter does not apply to auction responses. As noted in a recent rule filing enhancing this parameter, even if the parameter does not apply to auction responses, this protection will prevent an order from executing outside the acceptable price range (including against an auction response), and thus responses will not execute against an order outside the acceptable price range.7 However, cancelling an auction response prior to the end of an auction that would execute outside the acceptable price range may give the submitting Trading Permit Holder an opportunity to submit a new response within the acceptable price range prior to the end of the auction, and thus increase execution opportunities. Therefore, the proposed rule change applies this parameter to auction response. An auction response at a price outside the acceptable price range will not execute regardless of whether this parameter applies to the auction response; applying the parameter to auction responses merely changes the timing of when the response is cancelled.8 Other price protections similarly apply to auction responses.9

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80281 (March 20, 2017), 82 FR 15074, note 24 (March 44, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-010).

    8 Paragraph (e)(iii) currently states to the extent a contra-side order or response is marketable against the Agency Order, the execution price will be capped at the opposite side of the acceptable price range. The proposed rule change deletes this rule language, as it is redundant. The price protection will, as proposed, cancel orders and responses (or remaining size after partial execution) that would execute outside the acceptable price range. There [sic] is effectively the same as capping an execute [sic] price no wider than the acceptable price range, as no order or response will be able to execute at a price outside the range.

    9See, e.g., Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(c)(4).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.10 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 11 requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 12 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    12Id.

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change to provide the Exchange with flexibility to determine settings for the acceptable percentage range parameter on a class-by-class manner will permit the Exchange to ensure the range is not too close or too far away from the market price for a class based on factors such as minimum increment and premium, and thus ensure the range creates an effective check for all classes. This will protect investors from potentially erroneous executions while removing impediments to and perfecting the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by ensuring orders are not inadvertently cancelled due to a range that is too narrow. Other price protections have similar flexibility.13

    13See, e.g., Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(g).

    The proposed rule change to apply the acceptable percentage range parameter to auction responses merely changes the time at which responses outside the acceptable price range is cancelled. However, application of the acceptable percentage range parameter to auction responses may permit the submitting Trading Permit Holder to enter a new auction response at a price within the range prior to the end of the auction, which improves execution opportunities and thus protects investors. Other price protections similarly apply to auction responses.14

    14See, e.g., Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(c)(4).

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will apply to all complex orders submitted to C2 in the same manner. The enhancements to the acceptable percentage range parameter applicable to all incoming orders will help further prevent potentially erroneous executions, which benefits all market participants. Additionally, the proposed rule change is substantially similar to other price protections.15 The proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition, as it applies only to C2 price protection mechanisms that prevent erroneous executions on C2.

    15See, e.g., Rule 6.13, Interpretation and Policy .04(c)(4) and (g).

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.

    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 16 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.17

    16 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    17 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change 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-C2-2017-013 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-C2-2017-013. 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 website (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 website 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-C2-2017-013 and should be submitted on or before May 8, 2017.

    18 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.18

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07636 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with such requirements.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments to Stephen Morris, Online Media Coordinator, Office of Communications and Public Liaison, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Natale Goriel, Online Media Coordinator, (503) 326-5207, [email protected], or Curtis B. Rich, SBA PRA Officer, 202-205-7030, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In an effort to streamline the National Small Business Week nomination process, the SBA has put together nomination forms based on the criteria for each National Small Business Week award. The nomination forms will help the public more easily submit nomination packages to the SBA.

    Solicitation of Public Comments

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

    Summary of Information Collection

    Title: National Small Business Week Awards Nomination Forms.

    Description of Respondents: General public.

    Form Numbers: 3301-3313.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 200.

    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 1 hour.

    Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07654 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments to Mary Frias, Loan Specialist, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Frias, Loan Specialist, Office of Financial Assistance, [email protected] 202-401-8234, or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The information collected is used by SBA to monitor the Agents, fees charged by Agents, and the relationship between Agents and lenders. The information helps SBA to determine among other things whether borrowers are paying unnecessary, unreasonable or prohibitive fees.

    Title: “Compensation Agreement”.

    Form Number's: 159(7a), 159(504), 159D.

    Annual Responses: 9,210.

    Annual Burden: 1,385.

    Curtis Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07650 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-Day Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Small Business Administration's intentions to request approval on a new and/or currently approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments regarding whether this information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, whether the burden estimates are accurate, and if there are ways to minimize the estimated burden and enhance the quality of the collections, to Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy Analyst, Office of Investment and Innovation, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Louis Cupp, New Markets Policy Analyst, 202-619-0511 [email protected], or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030 [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    To obtain the information needed to carry out its oversight responsibilities under the Small Business Investment Act, the Small Business Administration (SBA) requires Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) to submit financial statements and supplementary information on SBA Form 468. SBA uses this information to monitor SBIC financial condition and regulatory compliance, for credit analysis when considering SBIC leverage applications, and to evaluate financial risk and economic impact for individual SBICs and the program as a whole.

    Solicitation of Public Comments:

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

    Title: SBIC Financial Reports.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    SBA Form Numbers: 468.1, 468.2, 468.3, 468.4.

    Description of Respondents: Small Business Investment Companies and Small Businesses.

    Responses: 1,198.

    Annual Burden: 29,041.

    Curtis Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07647 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments to Kelly Jackson, Program Analyst, Office of Government Contracting, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, 8th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Jackson, Program Analyst, 202-205-0108, [email protected], or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A small business determined to be non-responsible for award of a specific prime Government contract by a Government contracting office has the right to appeal that decision through the Small Business Administration (SBA). The information contained on this form, as well as, other information developed by SBA, is used in determining whether the decision by the Contracting Officer should be overturned.

    Solicitation of Public Comments

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

    Summary of Information Collection

    (1) Title: Small Business Administration Application for Certificate of Competency.

    Description of Respondents: Small Businesses.

    Form Number: SBA Form 1531.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 300.

    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 2,400.

    Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07652 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Data Collection Available for Public Comments ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to publish a notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information before submission to OMB, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice complies with that requirement.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 16, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send all comments to Mary Frias, Loan Specialist, Office of Financial Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Frias, Loan Specialist, Office of Financial Assistance, [email protected] 202-401-8234, or Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst, 202-205-7030, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: “Secondary Market for Section 504 First Mortgage Loan Pool Program”.

    Abstract: These forms captures the terms and conditions of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Secondary Market for Section 504 First Mortgage Loan Pool Program. SBA needs this information collection is order to identify program participants, terms of financial transactions involving federal government guaranties, and reporting on program efficiency, including the proper use of Recovery Act funds.

    Solicitation of Public Comments

    SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.

    Summary of Information Collection

    Title: Secondary Market for Section 504 First Mortgage Loan Pool Program.

    Description of Respondents: Secondary Market Loan Programs.

    Form Number: SBA Forms 2401, 2402, 2403. 2404.

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 12,490.

    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 33,075.

    Curtis B. Rich, Management Analyst.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07644 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9962] Overseas Schools Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Department of State

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal of an advisory committee charter.

    SUMMARY:

    The State Department is renewing the charter of the Overseas Schools Advisory Council.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Harry Mahar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Executive Secretary of the Committee at (202) 647-2082.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Renewal of Advisory Committee: The Secretary of State announces the renewal of the charter of the Overseas Schools Advisory Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    Purpose: The main objectives of the Council are:

    (a) To advise the Department of State regarding matters of policy and funding for the overseas schools.

    (b) To help the overseas schools become showcases for excellence in education.

    (c) To help make service abroad more attractive to American citizens who have school-age children, both in the business community and in Government.

    (d) To identify methods to mitigate risks to American private sector interests worldwide.

    Harry Mahar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-07643 Filed 4-14-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9965] Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Armor Court” Exhibition SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257-1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby determine that certain objects to be included in the exhibition “Armor Court,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Cleveland Museum of Art, Clev