Federal Register Vol. 82, No.80,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 80 (April 27, 2017)

Page Range19319-19612
FR Document

82_FR_80
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 19611 - National Volunteer Week, 2017PDF
82 FR 19395 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 19382 - Northern California District Resource Advisory Council; Postponement of MeetingPDF
82 FR 19457 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Internal Revenue Service Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 19456 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized PaymentPDF
82 FR 19456 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Multiple Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Information Collection RequestsPDF
82 FR 19333 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation PlansPDF
82 FR 19351 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 19368 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 19375 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 19383 - Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and NorwayPDF
82 FR 19413 - SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging CompaniesPDF
82 FR 19394 - Information Collection: DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory ListingPDF
82 FR 19432 - Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the Winter 2017 Scheduling SeasonPDF
82 FR 19382 - Early Revision of Agency Information Collection for the Application for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic InstitutePDF
82 FR 19325 - Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil PenaltiesPDF
82 FR 19319 - Environmental Policies and Procedures; CorrectionsPDF
82 FR 19379 - Certificate of Alternative Compliance for U.S. Coast Guard National Security CuttersPDF
82 FR 19356 - Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; 2016; Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative ReviewPDF
82 FR 19351 - Carton-Closing Staples From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationPDF
82 FR 19429 - California Disaster #CA-00270 Declaration of Economic InjuryPDF
82 FR 19429 - California Disaster #CA-00271 Declaration of Economic InjuryPDF
82 FR 19454 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 19390 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed New Information Collection Activity; Comment Request, Proposed Study Entitled “Tribal Youth Victimization Methods Study”PDF
82 FR 19455 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
82 FR 19455 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Mortgage Interest StatementPDF
82 FR 19454 - Mutual Savings Association Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 19364 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Loan Discharge Applications (DL/FFEL/Perkins)PDF
82 FR 19438 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 19446 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 19445 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 19377 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 19378 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 19380 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Electronic Visa Update SystemPDF
82 FR 19321 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Long Beach, NYPDF
82 FR 19322 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; York River, Yorktown, VAPDF
82 FR 19321 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WAPDF
82 FR 19320 - Special Local Regulation; Regattas and Marine Parades in the COTP Lake Michigan Zone-Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race, Chicago, ILPDF
82 FR 19435 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; DiabetesPDF
82 FR 19433 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 19350 - Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Palouse Ranger District; Idaho; Moose Creek ProjectPDF
82 FR 19357 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 19363 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Consolidated State Plan Assurances TemplatePDF
82 FR 19370 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 19373 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 19371 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
82 FR 19376 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
82 FR 19447 - FY 2017 Competitive Funding Opportunity: Low or No Emission Grant ProgramPDF
82 FR 19322 - Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services ProgramPDF
82 FR 19347 - Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services ProgramPDF
82 FR 19391 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; On the Road to Retirement SurveysPDF
82 FR 19331 - Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL, Tough CupPDF
82 FR 19393 - Request for Recommendations for Membership on Directorate and Office Advisory CommitteesPDF
82 FR 19392 - Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 19392 - Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 19396 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 19367 - TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 19365 - Navitas TN NG, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 19366 - Navitas KY NG, LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 19364 - Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of ApplicationPDF
82 FR 19367 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 19380 - National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Emergency Communications, SAFECOM Nationwide SurveyPDF
82 FR 19414 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 5.7PDF
82 FR 19412 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and ProceduresPDF
82 FR 19413 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, To List and Trade Shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund, a Series of the Amplify ETF Trust, Under BZX Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund SharesPDF
82 FR 19427 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1002 of the Exchange's Rules To Establish Certain Exemptions From Exercise LimitsPDF
82 FR 19426 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap ContractsPDF
82 FR 19398 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 19397 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the EtherIndex Ether Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
82 FR 19416 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Exchange To Trade, Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges, Any NMS Stock Listed on Another National Securities Exchange; Establishing Rules for the Trading Pursuant to UTP of Exchange-Traded Products; and Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Trading Halts of Securities Traded Pursuant to UTP on the Pillar PlatformPDF
82 FR 19430 - Bull Run Fossil Plant LandfillPDF
82 FR 19378 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
82 FR 19379 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 19378 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 19359 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
82 FR 19453 - Announcement Type: Notice and Request for Public CommentPDF
82 FR 19430 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Edvard Munch: Between the Clock and the Bed” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 19385 - David D. Moon, D.O.; Decision and OrderPDF
82 FR 19432 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
82 FR 19383 - Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D.; Decision and OrderPDF
82 FR 19329 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Colorado City, AZPDF
82 FR 19530 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; U.S. Navy Training Activities in the Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities AreaPDF
82 FR 19361 - Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, in Plaquemines Parish, LouisianaPDF
82 FR 19460 - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active SonarPDF
82 FR 19330 - General Administration: Designation of Central and Field Organization; Internal OrganizationPDF

Issue

82 80 Thursday, April 27, 2017 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Farm Service Agency

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

See

Rural Housing Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19368-19377 2017-08490 2017-08491 2017-08492 2017-08493 2017-08539 2017-08540 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: State Plan Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity Title IV-D, OCSE-100, 19378 2017-08506 Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and Required Data Elements for Paternity Establishment Affidavits, 19377-19378 2017-08510 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Virginia Advisory Committee, 19351 2017-08541 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA, 19321 2017-08502 Reynolds Channel, Long Beach, NY, 19321-19322 2017-08504 York River, Yorktown, VA, 19322 2017-08503 Special Local Regulations: Regattas and Marine Parades in Captain of the Port Lake Michigan Zone: Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race, Chicago, IL, 19320-19321 2017-08501 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: South Branch of Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL, Tough Cup, 19331-19333 2017-08482 NOTICES Certificates of Alternative Compliance: Coast Guard National Security Cutters, 19379-19380 2017-08528 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19453-19454 2017-08454 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Meetings: Mutual Savings Association Advisory Committee, 19454 2017-08516 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Arms Sales, 19357-19361 2017-08455 2017-08495
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: David D. Moon, D.O., 19385-19390 2017-08452 Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D., 19383-19385 2017-08450 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Consolidated State Plan Assurances Template, 19363-19364 2017-08494 Loan Discharge Applications (DL/FFEL/Perkins), 19364 2017-08515 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Proposed Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, in Plaquemines Parish, LA, 19361-19363 2017-08413 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 19333-19347 2017-08543 Farm Service Farm Service Agency RULES Environmental Policies and Procedures; Corrections, 19319-19320 2017-08529 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Class E Airspace, Amendments: Colorado City, AZ, 19329-19330 2017-08448 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries, 19432 2017-08451 Winter 2017 Scheduling Season Submission Deadline: Chicago O'Hare, John F. Kennedy, Los Angeles, Newark Liberty, and San Francisco International Airports, 19432-19433 2017-08532 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Structure and Practices of Video Relay Services Program, 19322-19325 2017-08488 PROPOSED RULES Structure and Practices of Video Relay Services Program, 19347-19349 2017-08487 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: Navitas KY NG, LLC, 19366-19367 2017-08473 Navitas TN NG, LLC, 19365-19366 2017-08474 Northwest Pipeline, LLC, 19364-19365 2017-08472 Combined Filings, 19367 2017-08471 Hydroelectric Applications: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc., 19367-19368 2017-08475 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes, 19435-19438, 19446-19447 2017-08498 2017-08512 Diabetes Mellitus, 19433-19435, 19438-19445 2017-08497 2017-08513 Vision, 19445-19446 2017-08511 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunities: FY 2017 Low or No Emission Grant Program, 19447-19453 2017-08489 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Moose Creek Project; Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Palouse Ranger District; ID, 19350-19351 2017-08496 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: SAFECOM Nationwide Survey, 19380-19381 2017-08468
Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, 19382 2017-08531 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19454-19455 2017-08523 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mortgage Interest Statement, 19455 2017-08517 Regulation Project, 19455-19456 2017-08518 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Carton-Closing Staples from the People's Republic of China, 19351-19356 2017-08526 Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 19356-19357 2017-08527 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway, 19383 2017-08535 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

National Institute of Justice

Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: On the Road to Retirement Surveys, 19391-19392 2017-08486 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Northern California District Resource Advisory Council, 19382 2017-08665 National Institute Justice National Institute of Justice NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tribal Youth Victimization Methods Study, 19390-19391 2017-08520 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 19378-19379 2017-08457 2017-08458 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 19378-19379 2017-08456 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: U.S. Navy Training Activities in Gulf of Alaska Temporary Maritime Activities Area, 19530-19607 2017-08424 PROPOSED RULES Taking and Importing Marine Mammals: Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to U.S. Navy Operations of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar, 19460-19527 2017-08066 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering, 19392 2017-08480 Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research, 19392-19393 2017-08478 2017-08479 Requests for Nominations: Directorate and Office Advisory Committees, 19393-19394 2017-08481 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19394-19395 2017-08533 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RULES Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties, 19325-19328 2017-08530 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 19395-19396 2017-08676 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Volunteer Week (Proc. 9593), 19609-19612 2017-08723 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board PROPOSED RULES General Administration: Designation of Central and Field Organization; Internal Organization, 19330-19331 2017-07893 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 19396 2017-08477 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service RULES Environmental Policies and Procedures; Corrections, 19319-19320 2017-08529 Rural Housing Service Rural Housing Service RULES Environmental Policies and Procedures; Corrections, 19319-19320 2017-08529 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Environmental Policies and Procedures; Corrections, 19319-19320 2017-08529 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies, 19413-19414 2017-08534 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 19413 2017-08465 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 19414-19415 2017-08467 ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 19412-19413, 19426-19427 2017-08463 2017-08466 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 19427-19429 2017-08464 NYSE Arca, Inc., 19397-19412 2017-08461 2017-08462 NYSE MKT, LLC, 19416-19426 2017-08460 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 19429-19430 2017-08524 2017-08525 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Edvard Munch: Between the Clock and the Bed Exhibition, 19430 2017-08453 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Bull Run Fossil Plant Landfill, 19430-19432 2017-08459 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Multiple Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau Information Collection Requests, 19456-19457 2017-08545 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payment, 19456 2017-08546 Multiple Internal Revenue Service Information Collection Requests, 19457-19458 2017-08547
Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Visa Update System, 19380 2017-08505 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19460-19527 2017-08066 Part III Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 19530-19607 2017-08424 Part IV Presidential Documents, 19609-19612 2017-08723 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 80 Thursday, April 27, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Housing Service Rural Business-Cooperative Service Rural Utilities Service Farm Service Agency 7 CFR Parts 1944, 1955 and 1962 RIN 0575-AC56 Environmental Policies and Procedures; Corrections AGENCY:

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA.

ACTION:

Correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency published a document in the Federal Register on March 2, 2016 (81 FR 11000), entitled “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” The rule replaced two existing rules relating to the Agencies' procedures for implementing NEPA. These corrections will replace references in several paragraphs to one of the former rules, 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, which is now obsolete.

DATES:

This rule is effective April 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kellie M. Kubena, Director, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-1571; email: [email protected]; telephone: (202) 720-1649.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, and Farm Service Agency published a document in the Federal Register on March 2, 2016 (81 FR 11000), entitled “Environmental Policies and Procedures.” This document describes the Agencies' procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and supplanted two former regulations. These corrections will replace references in other regulations to one of the former rules, 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, which is now obsolete. The following sections will be corrected: §§ 1944.672(g), 1955.10, 1955.63(b), 1955.66, 1955.107(a)(3)(iv), 1955.136(a), 1955.137(a)(3)(i), 1955.139(a)(3)(v), 1955.140(a), 1962.30, and 1962.34(a).

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 1944

Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs—Housing and community development, Home improvement, Loan programs—Housing and community development, Migrant labor, Nonprofit organizations, Reporting requirements, Rural housing.

7 CFR Part 1955

Government acquired property, Government property management, Sale of government acquired property, Surplus government property.

7 CFR Part 1962

Agriculture, bankruptcy, drug traffic control, Government property, Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—housing and community development, Rural areas.

Accordingly, 7 CFR chapter XVIII is amended by making the following correcting amendments:

PART 1944—HOUSING 1. The authority citation for part 1944 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 42 U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart N—Housing Preservation Grants 2. Revise § 1944.672(g) to read as follows:
§ 1944.672 Environmental review requirements.

(g) Grantees must contact Rural Development prior to actual usage of funds by the grantees under § 1944.664 (c)(11) of this subpart. Rural Development must complete the appropriate level of environmental review in accordance with part 1970 of this chapter.

PART 1955—PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3. The authority citation for part 1955 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart A—Liquidation of Loans Secured by Real Estate and Acquisition of Real and Chattel Property 4. Revise the eleventh sentence of § 1955.10 to read as follows:
§ 1955.10 Voluntary conveyance of real property by the borrower to the Government.

* * * In addition, prior to acceptance of a voluntary conveyance of farm real property that collateralizes an FP loan, the County Supervisor will remind the borrower-owner of possible deed restrictions and easement that may be placed on the property in the event the property contains wetlands, floodplains, historical sites and/or other federally protected environmental resources as set forth in part 1970 of this chapter and § 1955.137 of this part . * * *

Subpart B—Management of Property 5. Revise the last sentence of paragraph (b) of § 1955.63 to read as follows:
§ 1955.63 Suitability determination.

(b) * * * The environmental effects of such actions will be considered pursuant to part 1970 of this chapter.

6. Amend § 1955.66 by: a. Revising the last sentence of the introductory text; and b. Removing paragraph (a)(2)(iii) and redesignating paragraph (a)(2)(iv) as new paragraph (a)(2)(iii).
§ 1955.66 Lease of real property.

* * * The requirements of part 1970 of this chapter will be met for all leases.

Subpart C—Disposal of Inventory Property 7. Revise the first sentence of § 1955.107(a)(3)(iv) to read as follows:
§ 1955.107 Sale of FSA Property (CONACT).

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(iv) Property sold on credit sale may not be used for any purpose that will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land or to the conversion of wetlands to produce an agricultural commodity. * * *

8. Revise § 1955.136(a) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 1955.136 Environmental review requirements.

(a) Prior to a final decision on some disposal actions, the action must comply with the environmental review requirements in accordance with the agency's environmental policies and procedures found in 7 CFR part 1970.

9. Revise § 1955.137(a)(3)(i) to read as follows:
§ 1955.137 Real property located in special areas or having special characteristics.

(a) * * *

(3) * * * (i) Financial assistance is limited to property located in areas where flood insurance is available. Flood insurance must be provided at closing of loans on program-eligible and non-program (NP)-ineligible terms. Appraisals of property in flood or mudslide hazard areas will reflect this condition and any restrictions on use. Financial assistance for substantial improvement or repair of property located in a flood or mudslide hazard area is subject to the limitations outlined in 7 CFR part 1970 for Rural Development programs.

10. Revise the second sentence of § 1955.139(a)(3)(v) to read as follows:
§ 1955.139 Disposition of real property rights and title to real property.

(a) * * *

(3) * * *

(v) * * * Examples of instances where an affirmative responsibility exists to place an easement on a farm property include wetland and floodplain conservation easements required by § 1955.137 of this subpart or easements designed as environmental mitigation measures for the purpose of protecting federally designated important environmental resources. * * *

11. Revise § 1955.140(a) to read as follows:
§ 1955.140 Sale in parcels.

(a) Individual property subdivided. An individual property, other than Farm Loan Programs property, may be offered for sale as a whole or subdivided into parcels as determined by the State Director. For MFH property, guidance will be requested from the National Office for all properties other than RHS projects. When farm inventory property is larger than a family-size farm, the county official will subdivide the property into one or more tracts to be sold in accordance with § 1955.107. Division of the land or separate sales of portions of the property, such as timber, growing crops, inventory for small business enterprises, buildings, facilities, and similar items may be permitted if a better total price for the property can be obtained in this manner. Environmental review requirements must comply with 7 CFR part 1970. Any applicable State laws will be set forth in a State supplement and will be complied with in connection with the division of land. Subdivision of acquired property will be reported on Form RD 1955-3C, “Acquired Property—Subdivision,” in accordance with the FMI.

PART 1962—PERSONAL PROPERTY 12. The authority citation for part 1962 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 42 U.S.C. 1480.

Subpart A—Servicing and Liquidation of Chattel Security
§ 1962.30 [Amended]
13. Amend § 1962.30 to remove paragraph (b)(5) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(6) and (7) as new paragraphs (b)(5) and (6) respectively.
§ 1962.34 [Amended]
14. Amend § 1962.34 to remove paragraph (a)(4) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) as new paragraphs (a)(4) and (5) respectively. Dated: March 29, 2017. Roger Glendenning, Acting Under Secretary, Rural Development. Dated: February 23, 2017. Jason Hafemeister, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-08529 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2013-0327] Special Local Regulation; Regattas and Marine Parades in the COTP Lake Michigan Zone—Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race, Chicago, IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation on the South Branch of the Chicago River for the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race in Chicago, Illinois. This regulated area will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 24, 2017. This action is necessary and intended to ensure safety of life and property on navigable waters prior to, during, and immediately after the Dragon Boat Race. During the enforcement period, no vessel may enter, transit through, or anchor within the regulated area without the approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulation in 33 CFR 100.909 will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at 630-986-2155, email address [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation in 33 CFR 100.909 from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. on June 24, 2017, for the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on a navigable waterway during the regatta. The Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL, § 100.909, specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River from the West 18th St. Bridge at position 41°51′28″ N., 087°38′06″ W. to the Amtrak Bridge at position 41°51′20″ N., 087°38′13″ W. (NAD 83). During the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.

Vessels that obtain prior approval to transit the regulated area are required to operate at a no wake speed to reduce wake to a minimum, and in a manner which will not endanger participants in the event or any other craft. These rules shall not apply to participants in the event or vessels of the patrol operating in the performance of their assigned duties. The Captain of the Port or a designated representative may direct the anchoring, mooring, or movement of any boat or vessel within the regulated area.

This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.909, Chinatown Chamber of Commerce Dragon Boat Race; Chicago, IL and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). The Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance notice of the enforcement of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and Local Notice to Mariners. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative may be contacted via Channel 16, VHF-FM.

Dated: March 31, 2017. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2017-08501 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0213] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Hood Canal, Port Gamble, WA 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 Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal (Admiralty Inlet), mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. This deviation is necessary to accommodate replacement of the draw span operating equipment. The deviation allows the bridge to open the draw half-way, 300 feet; as opposed to a full opening, which is 600 feet. The deviation also requires the draw to open on signal if at least four hours notice is given.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on May 1, 2017, to 7 p.m. on September 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0213 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 Mr. Steven Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District; telephone 206-220-7282, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge be allowed to only open half of the draw span to facilitate safe and uninterrupted draw span equipment replacement. The Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge crosses Hood Canal, mile 5.0, near Port Gamble, WA. The bridge has two fixed spans (east and west), and one draw span (center). The east span provides 50 feet of vertical clearance, the west span provides 35 feet of vertical clearance and the center span provides zero feet of vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position. The center span provides unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Vertical clearances are referenced to mean high-water elevation. The deviation period allows the center span of the Hood Canal Floating Drawbridge across Hood Canal, mile 5.0, to only open half-way after contact the bridge operator has been at least four hours prior to signaling for an opening from 6 a.m. on May 1, 2017, until 7 p.m. on September 30, 2017.

During the time of the deviation, the drawbridge will not be able to operate according to the normal operating schedule. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is in accordance with 33 CFR 117.1045. The bridge shall operate in accordance to 33 CFR 117.1045 at all other times. Waterway usage on this part of Hood Canal includes commercial tugs and barges, U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and small pleasure craft. Coordination has been completed with known waterway users, and no objections to the deviation have been received.

Vessels able to pass through the east and west spans may do so at any time. The center span does not provide passage in the closed-to-navigation position. The bridge will be able to open half the center span for Navy and Coast Guard vessels during emergencies, when at least a one hour notice has been given by the Department of the Navy or U.S. Coast Guard. 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 vessels 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 21, 2017. Steven Fischer, Chief, Bridge Program, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08502 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0291] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Reynolds Channel, Long Beach, NY 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 Long Beach Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 4.7, at Long Beach, New York. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate an annual fireworks display and allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for one hour.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 9:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017 to 10:30 p.m. on July 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, USCG-2017-0291 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 Long Beach Police Department requested and the bridge owner, Nassau County of Public Works, concurred with a temporary deviation request from the normal operating schedule to facilitate a public fireworks event.

The Long Beach Bridge, mile 4.7, across Reynolds Channel, has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean high water and 24 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.799(g).

This temporary deviation will allow the Long Beach Bridge to remain closed from 9:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on July 7, 2017 with rain dates of July 8, 2017 and July 9, 2017. The waterway is used primarily by seasonal recreational vessels and occasional tug/barge traffic. Coordination with waterway users has indicated no objections to this short-term closure of the draw.

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 24, 2017. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08504 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0245] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; York River, Yorktown, VA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Coleman Memorial (US 17) Bridge which carries US 17 across the York River, mile 7.0, at Yorktown, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

The deviation is effective from 5:30 a.m. on Sunday, May 7, 2017, through 8 a.m. on Sunday, May 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2017-0245] 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 Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]

SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Virginia Department of Transportation, owner and operator of the Coleman Memorial (US 17) Bridge, that carries US 17 across the York River, mile 7.0, at Yorktown, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current published schedule to test the manual operating capabilities of each swing span of the drawbridge. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 60 feet above mean high water (MHW) in the closed position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open position. The current operating schedule is set out in 33 CFR 117.1025. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 5:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., on Sunday, May 7, 2017; with an alternative date on Sunday, May 14, 2017.

The York River is used by a variety of vessels including recreational, tug and barge traffic, fishing vessels, and small commercial vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies, if at least 30 minutes notice is given, and there is no immediate alternative route for vessels unable to pass through the bridge in the closed position. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice 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 21, 2017. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2017-08503 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123; DA 17-76] Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau or CGB), pursuant to delegated authority, adopts amendments to the Commission's telecommunications relay services (TRS) rules to incorporate technical standards to improve the interoperability and portability of services, equipment, and software used for video relay services (VRS) to enhance functional equivalence and VRS availability for consumers, ease of compliance by providers, and overall efficiency in the operation of VRS.

DATES:

Effective Date: This rule is effective as of May 30, 2017. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rules is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 30, 2017.

Compliance Dates: The compliance date for the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile is August 25, 2017. The compliance date for the Relay User Equipment (RUE) Profile is April 27, 2018. The compliance date for contact lists and speed dial lists is October 24, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (202) 418-0996, email [email protected], or Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2235, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Report and Order, document DA 17-76, adopted on January 17, 2017, and released on January 17, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DA 17-76, is published elsewhere in this issue. The full text of document DA 17-76 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2272 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Incorporation by Reference

The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) requires that agencies must discuss in the preamble of a final rule ways that the materials the agency is incorporating by reference are reasonably available to interested parties. In addition, the preamble of the final rule must summarize the material. The US VRS Provider Profile TWG-6-1, the US Video Relay Service (VRS) Provider Interoperability Profile, Version 15, (2015) (VRS Provider Interoperability Profile), provides technical specifications for the interface between VRS providers and the interface between a VRS provider and the TRS Numbering Directory. The document is available from the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, https://www.fcc.gov/files/sip-forum-vrs-us-providers-profile-twg-6-1. The Interoperability Profile for Relay User Equipment, draft-vrs-rue-dispatch-00 (2016) (RUE Profile), provides technical specifications that define a standard interface between a relay user's equipment and the services offered by relay service providers. The document is available from IETF Secretariat, 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538, 510-492-4080, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vrs-rue-dispatch. Request for Comments (RFC) 6351, xCard: vCard XML Representation (2011) (xCard XML Format), specifies a standard data interchange format for exporting and importing user personal contacts lists (i.e., address books) and user speed dial lists. The document is available from IETF Secretariat, 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538, 510-492-4080, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6351. In addition, all of the above documents are available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Reference Information Center, Room CYA257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270.

Congressional Review Act

The Commission will send a copy of document DA 17-76 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

Document DA 17-76 does not contain any new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Synopsis

1. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau pursuant to delegated authority provided by the Commission in the Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, et al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013 (2013 VRS Reform Order), amends the Commission's telecommunication relay service (TRS) rules to incorporate by reference certain technical standards for the interoperability and portability of services, equipment, and software used for video relay service (VRS). In August 2015, the VRS Task Group of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Forum completed a technical standard addressing interoperability between VRS providers, entitled the US VRS Provider Interoperability Profile (VRS Provider Interoperability Profile). Subsequently, the VRS providers formed another group, the Relay User Equipment Forum (RUE Forum), which published a second technical standard addressing interoperability between a VRS provider and user equipment and software, entitled the Interoperability Profile for RUE Profile.

VRS Provider Interoperability Profile

2. The VRS Provider Interoperability Profile provides technical specifications for the interface between two VRS providers, as well as the interface between a VRS provider and the TRS Numbering Directory. The TRS Numbering Directory is a database that enables the routing of VRS and point-to-point video calls that originate and terminate with different VRS providers. The Bureau concludes that the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile will advance the Commission's goals of ensuring interoperability and portability and will “advance the statutory functional equivalency mandate [and] improve the availability of TRS, in the most efficient manner,” in accordance with the 2013 VRS Reform Order. Specifically, this standard will provide a common framework for provider compliance and specific criteria for assessing such compliance and will thereby increase the certainty that all VRS users can place and receive calls through any VRS provider and make point-to-point calls to all other VRS users, irrespective of the default provider of the parties to the call, and without the caller having to change the VRS access technology used to make such calls. The Bureau therefore adopts the proposal to incorporate the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile by reference.

RUE Profile

3. The RUE Profile provides technical specifications that define a standard interface between a relay user's equipment and the services offered by relay service providers. The RUE Profile thus addresses a number of technical issues not governed by the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile. By specifying a basic interface that is usable with any provider, so that a user can freely access any provider and switch to a different default provider, without the need to change equipment or software and without experiencing any inconvenience or disruption of communications functions, the RUE Profile appears to advance the goal of full functional equivalence, potentially allowing VRS consumers the same degree of equipment portability that wireline voice communications users have enjoyed for decades. Although the Consumer Groups support the incorporation by reference of the RUE Profile in the VRS interoperability rule, VRS providers claim that the purpose of the RUE Profile, as developed, is limited to defining an interface between user equipment utilizing the VRS access technology reference platform, now known as the Accessible Communications for Everyone (ACE) Application, or “ACE App,” and VRS providers' networks. They contend that a rule requiring all provider-distributed VRS user hardware and software to comply with the RUE Profile would impose major costs and burdens on VRS providers.

4. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau incorporates the RUE Profile by reference into the interoperability rule, but on a limited basis that preserves providers' flexibility to continue offering user equipment and software that does not conform to the RUE Profile in all respects, pending further determinations in this proceeding. The Bureau recognizes the concerns raised by the providers that immediate application of the RUE Profile as a whole to all user equipment and software may not be feasible without resulting in significant disruption of existing user arrangements. Accordingly, the rule the Bureau adopts requires VRS providers to comply with the RUE Profile only for purposes of ensuring provider interoperability with the ACE App. The Bureau defers to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking the question of to what extent, and on what timetable, the RUE Profile should be more broadly applied to existing and prospective access technology offered by providers.

5. The Commission previously amended its rules to require VRS providers to “ensure that their VRS access technologies and their video communications service platforms are interoperable with the [ACE App].” To ensure that the ACE App interoperability requirement is enforceable, the Bureau adopts a rule that incorporates the RUE Profile by reference into the existing rule requiring interoperability between provider services and the ACE App. As the Bureau expects that the ACE App will be released in the near future in a version suitable for interoperability testing, the Bureau concludes that it is reasonable to allow one year for VRS providers to complete software development, testing, and deployment to ensure that their networks are interoperable with the ACE App.

Contact Lists and Speed Dial Lists

6. In the 2013 VRS Reform Order, the Commission mandated that standards for the transfer of users' contact and speed dial lists be broadly applicable to all VRS access technologies. The RUE Profile specifies such a standard data interchange format, RFC 6351, the xCard XML Format.

7. Accordingly, the Bureau amends the rules to incorporate into the existing interoperability and portability rules the xCard specification referenced in the RUE Profile.

Updating the Standards

8. The Bureau adopts the following procedure for incorporating amendments or changes to the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile and the RUE Profile into the Commission's rules in a timely and efficient manner. Under this procedure, CGB will make the updated standard available to the public online and issue a public notice seeking comment on such modifications, followed by an order incorporating into the VRS rules amendments or changes by reference if justified based on the resulting record. When such revised standards are completed and accepted by the Bureau, a second public notice will be issued containing information on how to access the modified standards and establishing an implementation schedule.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

9. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Bureau incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published at 81 FR 57851, August 24, 2016 (August FNPRM). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the August FNPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

10. In document DA 17-76, the TRS rules are amended to incorporate by reference the technical standards for interoperability and portability of VRS services and equipment developed by the SIP Forum's VRS Task Group and a successor group, the RUE Forum.

11. The VRS Provider Interoperability Profile provides technical specifications for the interface between two VRS providers, as well as the interface between a VRS provider and the TRS Numbering Directory. The Bureau concludes that incorporation of the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile will advance the Commission's goals of ensuring interoperability and portability, as required by the 2013 VRS Reform Order, by providing a common framework for interoperability compliance and specific criteria for assessing such compliance.

12. The RUE Profile specifies a technical standard for the interface between a provider and user software. Because the Commission mandated that standards for the transfer of users' contact and speed dial lists be broadly applicable to all VRS access technologies, the Bureau amends the interoperability rule to incorporate by reference the xCard specification referenced in the RUE Profile. Further, the Bureau incorporates the complete RUE Profile into the requirement that VRS providers “ensure that their VRS access technologies and their video communications service platforms are interoperable with the [ACE App].”

13. In addition, document DA 17-76 adopts a process that will readily enable revisions to this rule to reflect future amendments or changes in these standards by issuing a public notice seeking comment on such modifications, followed by an order incorporating into the VRS rules amendments or changes by reference if justified based on the resulting record, after which a second public notice will be issued containing information on how to access the modified standards online and establishing an implementation schedule.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

14. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

Listing of Small Entities Impacted

15. The rules adopted in document DA 17-76 will affect obligations of providers of VRS. Affected small entities as defined by industry are as follows.

• All Other Telecommunications.

• VRS Providers, which are generally classified within the broad category of “All Other Telecommunications.”

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

16. The rule changes adopted in the document DA 17-76 modify rules governing compliance obligations. Specifically, VRS providers must modify their networks, e.g., their protocols for routing calls to other providers and for enabling users to import contact lists, as necessary to conform to the technical standards incorporated into the existing TRS interoperability rules.

17. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

18. In general, alternatives to final rules are discussed only when those rules pose a significant adverse economic impact on small entities. In this context, however, the proposed rules generally confer benefits. In particular, technical standards for interoperability benefit the smaller VRS providers because consumers find the services of smaller providers to be more attractive when these services are interoperable than when they are not interoperable. These benefits outweigh any burdens associated with compliance. Moreover, because all of the VRS providers participated in the discussions associated with the development of the standards, the Bureau believes that these standards are acceptable to all VRS providers, including small entities. Further, to minimize any adverse impact on VRS providers, the Bureau adopted an alternative that narrows the scope of application of the technical standard for the interface between provider networks and user equipment and software, so that it governs only the interface between a provider's network and user equipment that employs designated open-source user software, rather than all user equipment and software. Lastly, document DA 17-76 allows extended implementation periods to ensure that providers have sufficient time to implement the standards.

Ordering Clauses

Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 303(r), and the authority delegated by the Commission in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program et al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, document DA 17-76 is adopted, and part 64 of the Commission's rules is amended.

The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document DA 17-76, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64

Incorporation by reference, Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications relay services, Video relay services.

Federal Communications Commission. Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 part 64 as follows:

PART 64—MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS 1. The authority citation for part 64 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 225, 254(k); 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 715, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56. Interpret or apply 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 254(k), 616, 620, and the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. 112-96, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend § 64.621 by: a. In paragraph (a)(1), removing the first instance of “VRS” and adding in its place “Video Relay Service (VRS)”; b. Revising paragraph (a)(3); and c. Adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 64.621 Interoperability and portability.

(a) * * *

(3) Beginning no later than April 27, 2018, all VRS providers must ensure that their VRS access technologies and their video communication service platforms are interoperable with the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform, including for point-to-point calls, in accordance with the Interoperability Profile for Relay User Equipment (RUE Profile). No VRS provider shall be compensated for minutes of use involving their VRS access technologies or video communication service platforms that are not interoperable with the VRS Access Technology Reference Platform.

(b) Technical standards for interoperability and portability. (1) Beginning no later than August 25, 2017, VRS providers shall ensure that their provision of VRS and video communications, including their access technology, meets the requirements of the VRS Provider Interoperability Profile.

(2) Beginning no later than October 24, 2017, VRS providers shall provide a standard xCard export interface to enable users to import their lists of contacts in xCard XML format, in accordance with IETF RFC 6351.

(c) Incorporation by reference. The standards required in this section are incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street, SW., Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270, and is available from the sources indicated below. It is also available for inspection 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/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.htm.

(1) FCC (on behalf of SIP Forum), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, (888) 225-5322 (voice), (844) 432-2275 (videophone), (888) 835-5322 (TTY).

(i) VRS US Providers Profile TWG-6.1, the US VRS Provider Interoperability Profile, September 23, 2015. https://www.fcc.gov/files/sip-forum-vrs-us-providers-profile-twg-6-1.

(ii) [Reserved]

(2) The following standards are available from the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Secretariat, 5177 Brandin Court, Fremont, CA 94538, 510-492-4080.

(i) The Interoperability Profile for Relay User Equipment, draft-vrs-rue-dispatch-00, July 20, 2016 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vrs-rue-dispatch/.

(ii) Request for Comments (RFC) 6351, xCard: vCard XML Representation (August 2011) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6351.

[FR Doc. 2017-08488 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 190 [Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0010; Amdt. No. 190-17] RIN-2137-AF16 Pipeline Safety: Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Civil Penalties AGENCY:

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is revising references in its regulations to the maximum civil penalties for violations of Federal pipeline safety laws, or any PHMSA regulations or orders issued thereunder. Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which further amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Federal agencies are required to adjust their civil monetary penalties effective January 15, 2017, and annually thereafter, to account for changes in inflation.

PHMSA finds good cause to amend the regulations related to civil penalties without notice or opportunity for public comment. Advance public notice is unnecessary for the reasons described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

DATES:

The effective date of this final rule is April 27, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ahuva Battams, Attorney-Advisor, Pipeline Safety Division, Office of Chief Counsel, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, by telephone at 202-366-4400 or email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Civil Penalty Amendments II. Justification for the Final Rule III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking B. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures C. Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13175 E. Executive Order 13211 F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies G. Paperwork Reduction Act H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 I. Environmental Assessment J. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis K. Privacy Act L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) M. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis I. Civil Penalty Amendments

On June 30, 2016, PHMSA published an interim final rule, (81 FR 42564) in the Federal Register. Under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), Public Law 114-74, and consistent with the process outlined in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: “Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” M-16-06 (OMB Memorandum M-16-06), the interim final rule stated that PHMSA is revising references in its regulations to the maximum civil penalties for violations of Federal pipeline safety laws, or any PHMSA regulations or orders issued thereunder.

Pursuant to the 2015 Act, and consistent with the process outlined in the OMB memorandum titled “Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Implementation of the 2017 annual adjustment pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” M-17-11 (OMB Memorandum M-17-11), PHMSA is again revising references in these regulations to the maximum civil penalties for violations. Based on the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2017, derived from the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2016 (not seasonally adjusted), a multiplier of 1.01636 was used to calculate updated maximum civil penalty amounts.

The revised penalties are as follows:

Violated statute CFR citation Current maximum civil penalty Revised maximum civil penalty 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq., and any regulation or order issued thereunder 49 CFR 190.223(a) $205,638 for each violation for each day the violation continues, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,056,380 for a related series of violations $209,002 for each violation for each day the violation continues, with a maximum penalty not to exceed $2,090,022 for a related series of violations. 49 U.S.C. 60103; 49 U.S.C. 60111 49 CFR 190.223(c) A penalty not to exceed $75,123 which may be in addition to other penalties under 40 U.S.C. 60101, et seq An administrative civil penalty not to exceed $76,352, which may be in addition to other penalties assessed under 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq. 49 U.S.C. 60129 49 CFR 190.223(d) A penalty not to exceed $1,194 A penalty not to exceed $1,214.

The 2015 Act only applies to prospective penalties and does not retrospectively change any civil penalties previously assessed or enforced. Further, under the 2015 Act, PHMSA is required to publish annual inflation adjustments for each penalty levied under 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year.

The 2015 Act does not alter PHMSA's existing authority to assess penalties levied for violations under 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq. Additionally, if future penalties or penalty adjustments are enacted by statute or regulation, PHMSA will not adjust these penalties for inflation in the first year after the penalties are in effect. PHMSA will apply new annual penalty levels to any penalties assessed on or after the date these new penalty levels take effect.

II. Justification for Final Rule

PHMSA is proceeding directly to a final rule without providing a notice of proposed rulemaking or an opportunity for public comment. This action is permitted, in part, because the 2015 Act directs PHMSA to adjust the civil monetary penalties in accordance with the schedule provided in the 2015 Act, notwithstanding the notice and public comment procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). However, PHMSA also notes that the APA authorizes agencies to forego providing the opportunity for prior public notice and comment if an agency finds good cause that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)). In this instance, public comment is unnecessary because by making these technical amendments, PHMSA is not exercising discretion in a way that could be informed by public comment. PHMSA is required under the 2015 Act and directed by the OMB Guidance to publish this final rule by January 15, 2017, with the penalty levels stated herein slated to take effect on that date. Further, PHMSA is mandated by the 2015 Act and directed by the OMB Guidance to adjust the penalty levels pursuant to the specific procedures also stated herein. Any public comments received through notice and public procedure would therefore not affect PHMSA's obligation to comply with the 2015 Act, nor would they affect the methods used by PHMSA to adjust the penalty levels.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices A. Statutory/Legal Authority for This Rulemaking

This final rule is published under the authority of the 2015 Act, as well 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq. These statutes provide PHMSA with the authority to levy civil penalties for violations of Federal pipeline safety laws. The 2015 Act requires penalties levied by Federal agencies pursuant to these laws to be adjusted. Beginning in January 2017, the 2015 Act requires such penalties to be adjusted on an annual basis no later than January 15 of each year.

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing DOT policies and procedures and determined to be non-significant under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011). Consistent with guidance in OMB Memorandum M-17-11, this final rule is considered to be a non-significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Further, this final rule is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the DOT because it is limited to a ministerial act in which the agency has no discretion and where the economic impact of the final rule is minimal (44 FR 11034). Accordingly, preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

This final rule imposes no new costs upon persons conducting operations in compliance with Federal pipeline statutes and regulations. Those operators not in compliance with these statues and regulations may experience an increased cost based on the penalties levied against them for non-compliance; however, this is an avoidable, variable cost and thus is not considered in any evaluation of the significance of this regulatory action. The amendments in this final rule could provide a deterrent effect that could potentially lead to safety benefits; however, PHMSA does not expect such benefits to be significant. Overall, it is anticipated that costs and benefits from this final rule would be minimal in real dollars.

C. Executive Order 13132

PHMSA has analyzed this final rule according to Executive Order 13132 on Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999). The final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The final rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments nor preempts state law governing intrastate pipelines. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13175

This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 on consultation and coordination with Indian tribal governments, 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000). Because the final rule does not have tribal implications, does not impose substantial direct compliance costs, and is required by statute, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply.

E. Executive Order 13211

This final rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001). It is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on supply, distribution, or energy use. Further, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within OMB has not designated this final rule as a significant energy action.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13272, and DOT Procedures and Policies

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-611, requires each agency to analyze proposed regulations and assess their impact on small businesses and other small entities to determine whether this final rule is expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The provisions of this final rule may apply specifically to all businesses using pipelines to transport hazardous liquids, gas, and liquefied natural gas (LNG) in interstate commerce. Therefore, PHMSA certifies this final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule imposes no new requirements for recordkeeping or reporting.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This final rule does not impose unfunded mandates under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any year for either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, and is the least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the final rule.

I. Environmental Assessment

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the consequences of major Federal actions and prepare a detailed statement on actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375). When developing potential regulatory requirements, PHMSA evaluates those requirements to consider the environmental impact of these amendments. Specifically, PHMSA evaluates the risk of release and resulting environmental impact; the risk to human safety, including any risk to first responders; if the proposed regulation would be carried out in a defined geographic area; and the resources, especially in environmentally sensitive areas, that could be impacted by any proposed regulations.

This final rule would be generally applicable to pipeline operators, and would not be carried out in a defined geographic area. The adjusted, increased civil penalties listed in this final rule may act as a deterrent to those violating Federal pipeline safety laws, or any PHMSA regulations or orders issued thereunder. This may result in a positive environmental impact as a result of increased compliance with Federal pipeline safety laws and any PHMSA regulations or orders issued thereunder. Based on the above discussion, PHMSA concludes there are no significant environmental impacts associated with this final rule.

J. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

Under Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, agencies must consider whether the impacts associated with significant variations between domestic and international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the ability of American business to export and compete internationally, 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012). In meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.

Similarly, the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. For purposes of these requirements, Federal agencies may participate in the establishment of international standards so long as the standards have a legitimate domestic objective—such as providing for safety—and do not operate to exclude imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, using them as the basis for U.S. standards.

PHMSA participates in the establishment of international standards in order to protect the safety of the American public, and we have assessed the effects of this final rule to ensure that it does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. Accordingly, this final rule is consistent with Executive Order 13609 and PHMSA's obligations.

K. Privacy Act

Anyone is able to search the electronic form of written communications and comments received into our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement, published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), in the Federal Register at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-04-11/pdf/00-8505.pdf.

L. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

A regulation identifier number (RIN) is assigned to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in the spring and fall of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of this document can be used to cross-reference this action in the Unified Agenda.

M. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

Sections 3 and 4 of Executive Order 13609 direct an agency to conduct a regulatory analysis and ensure that a proposed rule does not cause unnecessary obstacles to foreign trade. This requirement applies if a rule constitutes a significant regulatory action, or if a regulatory evaluation must be prepared for the rule. This interim final rule is not a significant regulatory action, but a regulatory action under Section 3(e) of Executive Order 12866. PHMSA is not required under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 to submit a regulatory analysis.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 190

Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Pipeline safety.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 49 CFR part 190 which was published at 81 FR 42564 on June 30, 2016, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 190—PIPELINE SAFETY ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1321(b); 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.; 49 CFR 1.97; Pub. L. 114-74, section 701; Pub. L. No: 112-90, section 2; Pub. L. 101-410, sections 4-6.

2. In § 190.223 paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) are revised to read as follows:
§ 190.223 Maximum penalties.

(a) Any person found to have violated a provision of 49 U.S.C. 60101, et seq., or any regulations or orders issued thereunder, is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $209,002 for each violation for each day the violation continues, with a maximum administrative civil penalty not to exceed $2,090,022 for any related series of violations.

(c) Any person found to have violated any standard or order under 49 U.S.C. 60103 is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $76,352, which may be in addition to other penalties to which such person may be subject under paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) Any person who is determined to have violated any standard or order under 49 U.S.C. 60129 is subject to an administrative civil penalty not to exceed $1,214, which may be in addition to other penalties to which such person may be subject under paragraph (a) of this section.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 24, 2017, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97. Howard W. McMillan, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-08530 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
82 80 Thursday, April 27, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0258; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Colorado City, AZ AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

SUMMARY:

This action proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Colorado City Municipal Airport, Colorado City, AZ, to support the implementation of new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. Also, this action would update the geographic coordinates of the airport to match the FAA's current aeronautical database.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:1-800-647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2017-0258; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html. FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Colorado City Municipal Airport, Colorado City, AZ.

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-0258/Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-15”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Colorado City Municipal Airport, Colorado City, AZ. The airspace would be modified from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 7.8 miles west and 2 miles east of the 163° (from 173°) bearing from the airport to 16 miles (from 12 miles) south of the airport to contain the NDB-A procedure turn, and a segment would be added from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport extending to 15.1 miles southeast of the airport to support a new RNAV GPS RWY 29 instrument approach procedure for IFR operations at the airport.

The Class E airspace area extending upward from 1,200 feet would be removed as there is sufficient 1,200 foot airspace provided by St. George Class E airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface and Grand Canyon Class E en route airspace. Also, this action would update the geographic coordinates of the airport to lat. 36°57′36″ N., long. 113°00′50″ W. (from lat. 36°57′08″ N., long. 113°00′59″ W.), to match the FAA's current aeronautical database.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWP AZ E5 Colorado City, AZ [Modified] Colorado City Municipal Airport, AZ (Lat. 36°57′36″ N., long. 113°00′50″ W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the Colorado City Municipal Airport, and within 7.8 miles west and 4.2 miles east of a 163° bearing extending from the airport to 16 miles south of the airport, and within 2 miles each side of a 123° bearing from the airport extending to 15.1 miles southeast of the airport.

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 19, 2017. Sam S.L. Shrimpton, Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08448 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD 20 CFR Part 200 RIN 3220-AB67 General Administration: Designation of Central and Field Organization; Internal Organization AGENCY:

Railroad Retirement Board.

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Railroad Retirement Board (Board) proposes to amend its regulations to update the members of the Executive Committee, update the responsibilities of the Executive Committee members, and update office titles.

DATES:

Submit comments on or before June 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Address any comments concerning this proposed rule to Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N. Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelli D. Johnson, Assistant General Counsel, (312) 751-4937, TTD (312) 751-4701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Railroad Retirement Board (Board) proposes to amend its regulations in regard to the Board's policy on internal organization. The regulations to be amended are all contained in § 200.1(b). In § 200.1(b)(1) of the Board's regulations, the Board proposes to remove the language that states “the General Counsel also serves as the Senior Executive Officer,” and increase the number of members of the Executive Committee from six to seven members by adding as a member, the Director of Field Service. A description of the Director of Field Service's responsibilities will be added to § 200.1(b)(2). Finally, under § 200.1(b)(3), the office name of the Washington/Legislative Office will be changed to the Office of Legislative Affairs. Section 200.1(b)(3) of the proposed regulation will also remove the Office of Planning, and rename the Bureau of Quality Assurance to the Program Evaluation and Management Services (PEMS).

The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required. There are no changes to the information collections associated with § 200.1(b).

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 200

Railroad employees, Railroad retirement, General administration.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Railroad Retirement Board proposes to amend title 20, chapter II, subchapter A, part 200 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1. The authority citation for part 200 continues to read as follows: Authority:

45 U.S.C. 231f(b)(5) and 45 U.S.C. 362; § 200.4 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552; § 200.5 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; § 200.6 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552b; and § 200.7 also issued under 31 U.S.C. 3717.

2. Section 200.1 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 200.1 Designation of central and field organization.

(b) Internal organization. (1) Reporting directly to the Board Members is the seven member Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is comprised of the General Counsel, the Director of Administration, the Director of Programs, the Chief Financial Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the Director of Field Service. The Chief Actuary is a non-voting member. The Board members will designate a member of the Executive Committee as Senior Executive Officer.

(2) The Executive Committee is responsible for the day to day operations of the agency. The Senior Executive Officer is responsible for the direction and oversight of the Executive Committee. The General Counsel is responsible for advising the Board Members on major issues, interpreting the Acts and regulations administered by the Board, drafting and analyzing legislation, representing the Board in litigation and administrative forums and planning, directing, and coordinating the work of the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Secretary to the Board, the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals, and the Office of Legislative Affairs through their respective directors. The Director of Programs is responsible for managing, coordinating, and controlling the program operations of the agency which carry out provisions of the Railroad Retirement and Railroad Unemployment Insurance Acts. The Director of Administration is responsible for managing, coordinating and controlling certain administrative operations of the Board including the Division of Acquisition Management, the Bureau of Human Resources, the Office of Public Affairs, and the Division of Real Property Management. The Chief Financial Officer is responsible for the financial management of the agency, and the Chief Information Officer is responsible for coordinating the agency's information resources management program. The Chief Actuary is responsible for the actuarial program of the Board, and for maintaining statistical and financial information. The Director of Field Services is responsible for the oversight of the agency's nationwide field offices.

(3) The Office of Equal Employment Opportunity is responsible for equal employment opportunity and affirmative employment programs.

By Authority of the Board.

Martha P. Rico, Secretary to the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-07893 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2017-0197] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL, Tough Cup AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL. This action is necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the hazards associated with the Tough Cup, a crew regatta event. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

DATES:

Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before May 30, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0197 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (630) 986-2155, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

FR Federal Register

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking

Pub. L. Public Law

§ Section

U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

On November 16, 2016, the Coast Guard received an Application for Marine Event for the Tough Cup event to be held on the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the South Pulaski Road Bridge and the South Halsted Street Bridge. This event involves high performance rowing shells and sculls that range in size from 27 feet to 65 feet in length and oars out to 25 feet in width to race on a course along the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the potential hazards associated with this event would be a safety concern for participants as well as recreational and commercial traffic in or around the course where the event will take place.

This purpose of the rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels, persons and the navigable waters immediately before, during, and immediately after the scheduled event. The specific hazards include collisions among event participants, recreational traffic, and commercial traffic that may cause injury or marine casualties. The legal basis for this proposed rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish safety zones: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan proposes to establish a safety zone on all waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the South Pulaski Road Bridge and the South Halsted Street Bridge. This safety zone will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on September 30, 2017. The safety zone enforcement times are intended to ensure the safety of persons and vessels immediately before, during and immediately after the event.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan has determined that the safety zone in this proposed rule is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and people during this event. The safety zone in this proposed rule will be enforced for seven hours on September 30, 2017.

The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that the zone in this proposal will be enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification will include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.

All persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or his or her designated representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of the statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (“Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum titled “Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' ” (February 2, 2017). A regulatory analysis (RA) follows.

We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a short duration on the one day this rule will be in effect to ensure safety of spectators and participants at this scheduled event. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amendments to navigation regulations and establishment of a safety zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under section 2.B.2, and figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Add § 165.T09-0197 to read as follows:
§ 165. T09-0197 Safety Zone; South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago, IL, Tough Cup.

(a) Location. All waters of the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal between the South Pulaski Road Bridge and the South Halsted Street Bridge are designated as a safety zone.

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule will be effective from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on September 30, 2017 and will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on September 30, 2017.

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

(2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene representative.

(3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan to act on his or her behalf.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an on-scene representative.

Dated: April 20, 2017. A.B. Cocanour, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2017-08482 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092; FRL-9961-98-Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a source-specific revision to the Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Coronado Generating Station (“Coronado”), owned and operated by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District. The EPA proposes to find that the BART alternative for Coronado would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART, in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with this proposed approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the federal implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Coronado. We also propose to codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona SIP that have either been superseded by previously approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the SIP revision for Coronado.

DATES:

Written comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 2017. Requests for public hearing must be received on or before May 12, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-0092 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Krishna Viswanathan at [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background III. The Coronado SIP Revision IV. The EPA's Proposed Action V. Environmental Justice Considerations VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

• The initials AAC mean or refer to the Arizona Administrative Code.

• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

• The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.

• The word Coronado refers to the Coronado Generating Station.

• The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

• The initials BOD mean or refer to boiler operating day.

• The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to mandatory Class I Federal areas. When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

• The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.

• The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information.

• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

• The initials FIP mean or refer to federal implementation plan.

• The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX burners.

• The initials MACT mean or refer to Maximum Available Control Technology.

• The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer to pounds per million British thermal units.

• The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

• The initials NSPS mean or refer to Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources.

• The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

• The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.

• The initials PM mean or refer to particulate patter, which is inclusive of PM10 (particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers).

• The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction.

• The initials SIP mean or refer to state implementation plan.

• The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

• The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District.

B. Docket

The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI). Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding federal holidays.

C. Public Hearings

If anyone contacts the EPA by May 12, 2017 requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Krishna Viswanathan at (520) 999-7880 or [email protected] to request a hearing or to find out if a hearing will be held.

II. Background A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the CAA. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results from man-made air pollution.” 2 It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART controls. These sources are referred to as “BART-eligible” sources.3 In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.4 We promulgated the initial Regional Haze Rule in 1999 5 and updated it in 2017.6 The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule require states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas 7 by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.8 Under the Regional Haze Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations and establish emissions limitations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.9 In lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt alternative measures, as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the alternative must be “better than BART”).10

2See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.

3 40 CFR 51.301.

4See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.

5 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).

6 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).

7 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas, and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).

8See generally 40 CFR 51.308.

9 40 CFR 51.308(e).

10 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).

In addition to the visibility protection requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule, SIP revisions concerning regional haze are also subject to the general requirements of CAA section 110. In particular, they are subject to the requirement in CAA section 110(1) that SIP revisions must not “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA § 171]), or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA],” as well as the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that SIPs must include enforceable emission limits.

B. History of FIP BART Determination 1. 2011 Arizona Regional Haze SIP and 2012 Arizona Regional Haze FIP

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP (“Arizona Regional Haze SIP”) to the EPA on February 28, 2011. The Arizona Regional Haze SIP included BART determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Units 1 and 2 at Coronado. In a final rule published on December 5, 2012, the EPA approved ADEQ's BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved ADEQ's determination for NOX at Coronado.11 We also found that the SIP lacked the requisite compliance schedules and requirements for equipment maintenance and operation, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for BART for all pollutants. At the same time, we promulgated a FIP that included a plant-wide NOX BART emission limit for Coronado of 0.065 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) based on a 30-boiler-operating-day (BOD) rolling average, which Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) could meet by adding a low-load temperature control to its existing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system on Unit 2 and installing an SCR system including a low-load temperature control system on Unit 1. The FIP also included compliance deadlines and requirements for equipment maintenance and operation, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, to ensure the enforceability of the BART limits for SO2, PM10, and NOX.

11 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).

In addition, the FIP included two requirements that applied to all affected sources, including Coronado. First, we promulgated a work practice standard that requires that pollution control equipment be designed and capable of operating properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating conditions. Second, we incorporated by reference into the FIP certain provisions of the Arizona Adminsitrative Code (AAC) that establish an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to malfunctions. Please refer to the final rule published on December 5, 2012, for further information on the BART determinations and related FIP requirements.12

12Id.

2. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay of Regional Haze FIP

The EPA received a petition from SRP on February 4, 2013, requesting partial reconsideration and an administrative stay of the final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.13 EPA Region 9 sent a letter on April 9, 2013, to representatives of SRP granting partial reconsideration of the final rule for the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.14 In particular, the EPA stated that we were granting reconsideration of the compliance methodology for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado and that we would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on an alternative compliance methodology. We also noted that, because we initially proposed different NOX emission limits for the two units, we would seek comment on the appropriate emission limit for each of the units.

13 Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District for Partial Reconsideration and Stay of EPA's Final Rule: “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans” (February 4, 2013).

14 Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman W. Fichthorn and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and Williams (April 9, 2013).

3. FIP Revision for Coronado

In response to the petition from SRP, we issued a final FIP revision on April 13, 2016, replacing the plant-wide compliance method with a unit-specific compliance method for determining compliance with the BART emission limits for NOX from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado (“2016 BART Reconsideration”).15 While the plant-wide limit for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 was previously established as 0.065 lb/MMBtu, through this FIP revision we set a unit-specific limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, to be met by December 5, 2017. We also revised the work practice standard that applied to Coronado and removed the affirmative defense for malfunctions that was included in the FIP for Coronado.

15 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).

4. Arizona Regional Haze SIP Revision for Coronado Generating Station

On December 15, 2016, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP (“Coronado SIP Revision”) that provides an alternative to BART for Coronado (“Coronado BART Alternative”).16 The Coronado SIP Revision is the subject of this proposal.

16 Letter from Timothy S. Franquist, Director Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Action Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (December 15, 2016). The Coronado SIP Revision includes both the original version of the revision (dated July 19, 2016) that was proposed by ADEQ for public comment, and an addendum (“Addendum” dated November 10, 2016), in addition to various supporting materials. The Addendum documents changes to the Coronado BART Alternative since ADEQ's July 19, 2016 proposal. Unless otherwise specified, references in this document to the Coronado SIP Revision include both of these documents, as well as the other materials included in ADEQ's submittal.

III. The Coronado SIP Revision A. Summary of the Coronado SIP Revision

The Coronado SIP Revision and BART Alternative consists of an interim operating strategy (“Interim Strategy”), which would be in effect from December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025, and a final operating strategy (“Final Strategy”), which would take effect on January 1, 2026. The requirements associated with the Interim and Final Strategies are shown in Table 1 and summarized briefly below.

1. Final Strategy

The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision requires installation of SCR on Unit 1 (“SCR Option”) or the permanent cessation of operation of Unit 1 (“Shutdown Option”) no later than December 31, 2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ and the EPA of its selection by December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy includes two additional features: A SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-BOD rolling average, which applies to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it continues operating), and an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions cap of either 1,970 tons per year (tpy) if both units continue operating or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down.

2. Interim Strategy

The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options (designated IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which requires a period of seasonal curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and implement one of the three options, based on the NOX emissions performance of Unit 1 and the SO2 emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In particular, by October 21 of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and the EPA of its chosen option for that calendar year (and for January of the following year) and demonstrate that its NOX and SO2 emissions for that year (up to the date of the notification) have not already exceeded the limits associated with that option.17 SRP then must comply with those limits for the remainder of the year (and for January of the following year) and curtail operation of Unit 1 for the time period required under that option.18 In addition, under each option, the facility must comply with an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tpy effective in each year beginning in 2018.

17See Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016), Attachment E, condition D.1.

18 As indicated in Table 1, the first curtailment and last curtailment periods would be shorter than the periods in between. Under all three interim strategies, the first curtailment period would begin December 5, 2017. Under all three interim strategies, the last curtailment period would end December 31, 2025.

Table 1—Summary of Coronado BART Alternative Compared With 2014 Baseline and BART Control Strategy Control strategy Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu)
  • (30-BOD average)
  • NOX SO2 Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu)
  • (30-BOD average)
  • NOX SO2 Annual plant-wide SO2 cap (tpy) Unit 1 curtailment period
    2014 Baseline a 0.320 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A N/A BART Control Strategy b 0.065 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A N/A Interim Strategy: c IS2 0.320 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 October 21-January 31 IS3 0.320 0.050 0.080 0.050 1,970 November 21-January 20 IS4 0.310 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 November 21-January 20 Interim Strategy Timeline Notification date: October 21 of each year Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025 Final Strategy: SCR Installation 0.065 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 N/A Shutdown N/A N/A 0.080 0.060 1,080 N/A Final Strategy Timeline Notification date: December 31, 2022 Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025 a This scenario reflects the requirements of a 2008 consent decree (CD) between the United States and SRP, which include new wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) and Low NOX burners (LNB) with over fire air (OFA) on both units, and SCR on Unit 2. See United States v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-1479-JAT (D. Ariz.) (August 12, 2008). b 2016 EPA BART Reconsideration for NOX and 2010 ADEQ BART for SO2. cSee Addendum, Page 3, Table 1.

    ADEQ incorporated the revised emission limits, as well as associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, as a permit revision to Coronado's existing Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Coronado SIP Revision (“Coronado Permit Revision”).19

    19 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016). The provisions implementing the BART Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the permit. Attachment E will become effective under State law on the date of the EPA's final action to approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, section I.A.

    The Coronado SIP Revision also includes ADEQ's determination that the Coronado BART Alternative is “better than BART,” based on a demonstration that it fulfills the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for a BART alternative. More information regarding ADEQ's analysis is set forth below, along with the EPA's evaluation of the analysis.

    B. The EPA's Evaluation of the Coronado BART Alternative.

    The Regional Haze Rule requires that a SIP revision establishing a BART alternative include three elements, which are listed below. We have evaluated the Coronado BART Alternative with respect to each of the following elements:

    • A demonstration that the emissions trading program or other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative program.20

    20 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).

    • A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.21

    21 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

    • A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.22

    22 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).

    1. Demonstration that the alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), ADEQ must demonstrate that the alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative program. For a source-specific BART alternative, the critical elements of this demonstration are:

    • An analysis of BART and associated emission reductions 23

    23 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).

    • an analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable through the BART alternative 24

    24 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).

    • a determination that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART 25

    25 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).

    We summarize ADEQ's submittal with respect to each of these elements and provide our evaluation of the submittal below.

    a. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at Units 1 and 2. As noted above, ADEQ's BART analyses and determinations for Units 1 and 2 were included in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. We approved ADEQ's BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved ADEQ's BART determination for NOX and conducted our own BART analysis and determination for NOX BART in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. We later revised the NOX emission limits for Units 1 and 2 in the 2016 BART Reconsideration.26

    26 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).

    In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ compared the BART Alternative both to ADEQ's original BART determinations and to the EPA's BART determinations in the 2016 BART Reconsideration. For purposes of our evaluation, we consider BART for Coronado to consist of a combination of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, which were approved into the applicable SIP, and (2) the EPA's BART determination for NOX in the 2016 BART Reconsideration (collectively the “Coronado BART Control Strategy”). The emission limits comprising the Coronado BART Control Strategy are summarized in Table 2.

    Table 2—Coronado BART Control Strategy Emission Limits Unit Emission limits
  • (lb/MMBtu, averaged over a 30 boiler-operating-days)
  • NOX PM10 SO2
    Unit 1 0.065 0.030 0.080 Unit 2 0.080 0.030 0.080

    In the Technical Support Document (TSD) included with the Coronado SIP Revision,27 ADEQ calculated estimated annual emission reductions achievable with BART by comparing expected annual emissions under the Coronado BART Control Strategy with 2014 emissions (“2014 Baseline”).28 The results of these calculations are summarized in Table 3. As BART for PM10 and SO2 reflected existing controls, no emissions reductions of PM10 and SO2 are expected to result from BART, but significant reductions of NOX are expected to result from implementation of BART.

    27 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Appendix A, “Technical Support Document for Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station.”

    28Id. section 4. As noted above, the 2014 Baseline emissions reflects the requirements of the 2008 CD between the United States and SRP, including new FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR on Unit 2.

    Table 3—Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Coronado BART Control Strategy [tpy] Operating strategies NOX SO2 PM10 Total 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Coronado BART Control Strategy Emissions 2,410 2,651 994 6,055 Emission Reductions 4,096 0 0 4,096

    We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of BART and associated emission reductions achievable at Coronado under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). We note that the Regional Haze Rule does not specify what baseline year should be used for calculating emission reductions under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).29 However, because the purpose of calculating emission reductions achievable with BART is to compare these reductions to those achievable through the BART alternative,30 it is important that a consistent baseline be used for both sets of calculations. In this instance, Arizona used the 2014 Baseline for both purposes, so we find that its approach was reasonable.

    29 As explained below, the baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002 and, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure must be surplus to those reductions required as of 2002. However, this provision does not determine what baseline should be used for purposes of calculating emission reductions achievable under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).

    30See, e.g., 71 FR 60612, 60615 (October 13, 2006)(“Today's final rule revises section 51.308(e)(2) to make clear that the emissions reductions that could be achieved through implementation of the BART provisions at section 51.308(e)(1) serve as the benchmark against which States can compare an alternative program.”)

    b. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the BART Alternative

    In the Coronado SIP Revision TSD, ADEQ calculated emissions reductions achievable under the Interim Strategy by comparing estimated annual emissions under the Interim Strategy with 2014 Baseline emissions. In the Addendum to the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ also provided a summary of estimated annual emissions under the Final Strategy compared to 2014 Baseline emissions. The resulting emission reductions are shown in Table 4.

    Table 4—Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Coronado BART Alternative a Operating strategies NOX SO2 PM Total Interim Strategy 2 (IS2) b 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Interim Strategy IS2 Emissions 5,053 2002 858 7913 Emission Reductions 1,453 649 136 2,238 Interim Strategy 3 (IS3) 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Interim Strategy IS3 Emissions 5,667 1,526 915 8,108 Emission Reductions 839 1,125 79 2,043 Interim Strategy 4 (IS4) 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Interim Strategy IS4 Emissions 5,533 1,831 915 8,279 Emission Reductions 973 820 79 1,872 Final Strategy (SCR Option) c 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Final Strategy—SCR Option 2,410 1,970 994 5,374 Emission Reductions 4,096 681 0 4,777 Final Strategy (Shutdown Option) d 2014 Baseline Emissions 6,506 2,651 994 10,151 Final Strategy—Shutdown Option 1,366 1,080 512 2,958 Emission Reductions 5,140 1,571 482 7,193 a ADEQ assumed all scenarios would have the same average heat input rate and same percentage of the annualized utilization factor without curtailment. For the interim strategies, ADEQ adjusted the utilization factors to reflect the corresponding amount of Unit 1 curtailment required for each option. Since these are adjustments to the annual utilization rate for each year, they account for interim strategies that cross calendar years. b Detailed emission calculations for the 2014 Baseline and Interim Strategy can be found in Tables 2, 3, and 4 of the Coronado Regional Haze SIP TSD (July 19, 2016). c See, Coronado SIP Revision Addendum, Table 2 (November 19, 2016). dId.

    We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative measure under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D). As explained in the previous section, Arizona appropriately used the 2014 Baseline for calculating emissions reductions achievable with the Coronado BART Strategy and emissions reductions achievable with the Coronado BART Alternative.

    c. Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation of BART

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence that the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. Two different tests for determining whether the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART are outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, then the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20 percent days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas. This modeling test is sometimes referred to as the “two-prong test.”

    In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ separately analyzed the three options under the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).31

    31 ADEQ also included a “Supplemental Analysis of IMPROVE Monitoring Data” that it considered relevant to the determination of whether the Coronado BART Alternative is better than BART. See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages 9-10. However, because the State made a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), rather than a “clear weight of evidence” demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), these monitoring data are not directly relevant and we have not considered them in our evaluation of the SIP.

    i. BART Alternative Interim Strategy

    ADEQ determined that the Interim Strategy will not necessarily achieve greater emissions reductions than the BART Control Strategy because, while each option under the Interim Strategy will result in greater reductions in SO2 and PM10 than the BART Control Strategy, each option will also result in higher NOX emissions. Therefore, ADEQ relied on the results of air quality modeling (using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (“CAMx”) model) performed by SRP's contractor, Ramboll Environ, to demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would result in “greater reasonable progress” under the two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).32 CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to simulate the transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of pollution and/or long transport distances are involved. Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and have realistic representations of formation, transport, and removal processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility degradation.

    32 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), pages 6-8.

    The Coronado modeling followed a modeling protocol 33 that was reviewed by the EPA. The starting point for the modeling was modeling done as part of the Western Regional Air Partnership's West-side Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (“WestJump”), which used a 2008 meteorology and emissions base case, and covered the entire western United States.34 For the Coronado modeling work, Ramboll Environ reduced the modeling domain to an area within 300 kilometers of the facility and carried out a new model performance evaluation. The initial and boundary conditions for this domain were taken from WestJump modeling of sources for the entire western United States. For the two-prong test, an existing projected 2020 emissions database was used to estimate emissions of sources in Arizona (other than Coronado) and New Mexico. The 2020 emissions case is likely to be more representative of air quality conditions when the Coronado BART Control Strategy is implemented than the 2008 database. In the 2020 modeling, the Coronado emissions were set to appropriate levels for the 2014 Baseline, the Coronado BART Control Strategy, and the various Interim Strategy options, as shown in Table 5. Emission factors for Coronado for the modeling are identical to the emissions limits for the Coronado BART Alternative described in Table 1, except that the Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP revision includes a more stringent SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu for IS2 compared to the modeled value of 0.070 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the modeling does not reflect the plant-wide SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tpy included in the Coronado SIP revision.

    33 “Draft Modeling Plan for Conducting Better-than-BART Analysis for the Coronado Generating Station using a Photochemical Grid Model—Revision#1”, 06-35855A, Prepared for Salt River Project, Ramboll Environ US Corporation (August 2015).

    34https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx.

    Table 5—Emission Factors for SO2 and NOX and Curtailment Periods Used To Model the 2014 Baseline, Coronado BART Control Strategy, and Interim Strategy at Coronado Control strategy Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu) NOX SO2 Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu) NOX SO2 Unit 1
  • curtailment period
  • 2014 Baseline 0.320 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A Coronado BART Control Strategy 0.065 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A Interim Strategy: IS2 0.320 b 0.070 0.080 b 0.070 October 21-January 31 IS3 0.320 0.050 0.080 0.050 November 21-January 20 IS4 0.310 0.060 0.080 0.060 November 21-January 20 a As noted above, this scenario reflects 2008 CD controls, which include new wet FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR on Unit 2. b Although these emission factors were used for modeling, the final SIP submission adopted a lower SO2 emission limit for IS2 for both Units 1 and 2 of 0.060 lb/MMBtu.

    The CAMx-modeled concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical species were tracked for Coronado using the CAMx Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) Probing Tool, so that the concentrations and visibility impacts due to Coronado could be separated out from those due to the total of all modeled sources. PSAT provides air quality contributions from the emissions of Coronado in a single step and avoids the extra work needed in the simple subtraction approach, which would require additional modeling runs (with and without Coronado emissions) and a subtraction step to estimate the air quality contributions of Coronado emissions.

    Ramboll Environ computed visibility impairment due to Coronado using the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) equation,35 following a procedure recommended by the Federal Land Managers.36 Ramboll Environ then subtracted the deciview (dv) 37 visibility impairment due to natural background concentrations from the deciview impairment due to the sum of Coronado and natural background concentrations. This difference gives the visibility impact or “delta deciviews” solely due to Coronado. Thus, although the CAMx modeled concentrations realistically reflect the interactions of all sources, the Coronado visibility impacts were assessed relative to natural conditions, similar to the procedure followed in BART assessments.38

    35 IMPROVE refers to a monitoring network and also to the equation used to convert monitored concentrations to visbility impacts. “Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction from Particle Speciation Data”, IMPROVE technical subcommittee for algorithm review, January 2006, http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/gray-literature/.

    36 Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG), Phase I Report—Revised, National Park Service, 2010

    37 The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview as the principal metric for measuring visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measured or modeled concentrations to estimate light extinction using the IMPROVE, and then transforming the value of light extinction to deciviews using the logarithm function.

    38See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.5 (“Calculate the model results for each receptor as the change in deciviews compared against natural visibility conditions.”)

    For the first prong of the modeling test, Ramboll Environ computed the difference between the delta deciviews for each Interim Strategy option and the delta deciviews for the 2014 Baseline for each Class I area. Ramboll Environ then averaged these differences over the best 20 percent of days, the worst 20 percent of days, and for the full year. The results are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Based on these results, ADEQ concluded that that the Interim Strategy will result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with baseline conditions on the worst and best 20 percent of days and therefore meets the first prong of the modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

    Table 6—Prong 1 Test—Delta Deciview Differences of Visibility Conditions Between Baseline and Interim Strategy [Baseline—Interim Strategy] Class I area Average best 20% Days IS2 IS3 IS4 Average worst 20% Days IS2 IS3 IS4 Annual average IS2 IS3 IS4 Bandalier NM 0.0021 0.0021 0.0020 0.0043 0.0050 0.0043 0.0017 0.0024 0.0019 Bosque 0.0012 0.0016 0.0015 0.0011 0.0015 0.0013 0.0015 0.0023 0.0018 Chiricahua NM 0.0010 0.0014 0.0012 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0009 0.0007 Chiricahua Wild 0.0011 0.0016 0.0014 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0009 0.0007 Galiuro Wild 0.0012 0.0016 0.0013 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0007 0.0006 Gila Wild 0.0040 0.0044 0.0040 0.0002 0.0007 0.0005 0.0023 0.0030 0.0025 Grand Canyon NP 0.00002 0.0001 0.00004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0009 0.0012 0.0009 Mazatzal Wild 0.0032 0.0025 0.0028 0.0003 0.0008 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0008 Mesa Verde NP 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0015 0.0015 0.0011 0.0018 0.0022 0.0017 Mount Baldy Wild 0.0072 0.0069 0.0070 0.0033 0.0024 0.0017 0.0039 0.0042 0.0035 Petrified Forest NP 0.0021 0.0021 0.0020 0.0027 0.0034 0.0031 0.0078 0.0080 0.0068 Pine Mountain Wild 0.0023 0.0021 0.0023 0.0002 0.0007 0.0004 0.0008 0.0011 0.0009 Saguro NP 0.0004 0.0010 0.0007 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0004 San Pedro Parks Wild 0.0023 0.0022 0.0021 0.0040 0.0031 0.0025 0.0024 0.0032 0.0026 Sierra Ancha a Wild 0.0015 0.0017 0.0014 Superstition Wild 0.0058 0.0067 0.0060 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0012 0.0015 0.0013 Sycamore Canyon Wild 0.0003 0.0008 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006 0.0007 0.0013 0.0009 a The IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20 percent of days could not be estimated for the Sierra Ancha area. Table 7—Minimum Delta Deciview Differences Among Affected Class I Areas Between Interim Strategy and Baseline at Class I Areas (Baseline—Interim Strategy) a Interim operating strategy Average best 20% days Absolute (dv) Relative (%) Average worst 20% days Absolute (dv) Relative (%) Annual average Absolute (dv) Relative (%) IS2 0.00002 3.65 0.0001 7.30 0.0004 13.75 IS3 0.00010 11.55 0.0003 13.67 0.0006 18.73 IS4 0.00004 6.06 0.0002 9.86 0.0004 15.36 a Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 2. The selection of the Class I area with the minimum value (least incremental benefit from the Alternative Strategy compared to BART) was based on the absolute deciview levels. The relative difference for that Class I area is shown for informational purposes also.

    For the second prong of the modeling test, Ramboll Environ computed the difference between the delta deciviews for each Interim Strategy option and the delta deciviews for the Coronado BART Control Strategy. Ramboll Environ then compared the average differences between the Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Interim Strategy over all affected Class I areas to ensure that there is an overall improvement in visibility. Based on these modeling results, as shown in Table 8, ADEQ concluded that the Interim Strategy also meets this prong, as these results indicate that the Interim Strategy would result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I Areas, compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy on the worst and best 20 percent of days.39

    39 Although not required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), SRP and ADEQ included annual average modeling results, which also show a greater improvement in visibility on average across all affected Class I areas under the Interim Strategy.

    Table 8—Prong 2 Test—Delta Deciview Differences of Visibility Conditions Between Coronado BART Control Strategy and Interim Strategy [BART-Interim Strategy] a Class I area Average best 20% days IS2 IS3 IS4 Average worst 20% days IS2 IS3 IS4 Annual average IS2 IS3 IS4 Bandalier NM 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0011 0.0018 0.0011 −0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 Bosque 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0001 0.0006 0.0004 −0.0003 0.0004 −0.0001 Chiricahua NM −0.0011 −0.0007 −0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 −0.0002 0.0001 −0.0001 Chiricahua Wild −0.0011 −0.0006 −0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 −0.0002 0.0002 −0.0001 Galiuro Wild 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 −0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 −0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 Gila Wild 0.0009 0.0013 0.0009 −0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 −0.0004 0.0003 −0.0002 Grand Canyon NP −0.0001 −0.0001 −0.0001 −0.0003 0.0000 −0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0004 Mazatzal Wild −0.0009 −0.0015 −0.0012 −0.0004 0.0002 −0.0001 −0.0001 0.0001 −0.0001 Mesa Verde NP 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0003 0.0011 0.0016 0.0010 Mount Baldy Wild 0.0034 0.0030 0.0032 −0.0003 −0.0012 −0.0018 −0.0012 −0.0008 −0.0016 Petrified Forest NP 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 −0.0004 0.0004 0.0000 0.0018 0.0020 0.0008 Pine Mountain Wild −0.0007 −0.0009 −0.0007 0.0000 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 Saguro NP −0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 San Pedro Parks Wild 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0013 0.0004 −0.0002 −0.0003 0.0005 −0.0001 Sierra Ancha Wild b 0.0003 0.0005 0.0002 Superstition Wild 0.0018 0.0027 0.0020 −0.0001 −0.0001 −0.0003 0.0003 0.0006 0.0003 Sycamore Canyon Wild −0.0013 −0.0008 −0.0012 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007 0.0004 Average 0.0002 0.0004 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003 0.00001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001 a Coronado SIP Revision TSD Table 18. b The IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20% of days could not be estimated for the Sierra Ancha area.

    We have reviewed the modeling analysis performed by Ramboll Environ and submitted by ADEQ and find that it supports ADEQ's determination that the Interim Strategy would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). In particular, we have evaluated the Coronado modeling to confirm that, even though the numerical differences between the scenarios under the two-prong test are small, the results represent real visibility differences and not just the result of numerical artifacts or “noise” in the model results. As noted above, the modeling used the CAMx PSAT Probing Tool to track concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical species in order to separate out visibility impacts due to Coronado from those of other modeled sources. This PSAT-based approach helps to avoids numerical artifacts in the model results, as compared to the simple subtraction approach, and thus provides assurance that the relatively small numerical values in the modeled differences represent real visibility differences.

    In response to a request from the EPA, ADEQ submitted an additional analysis performed by Ramboll Environ to demonstrate that the modeled numerical differences represent real visibility improvements and are not just numerical artifacts.40 This analysis presented spatial plots of the modeled numerical differences in delta deciviews, for days on which Coronado had the highest delta-deciview impacts at Superstition Wilderness and Mount Baldy Wilderness, the Class I areas for which Coronado had the highest delta deciview impacts on the best and worst 20 percent of days, respectively. There were plots for deciviews computed using all pollutant species, with separate plots for sulfate and nitrate individually, the chemical products of SO2 and NOX precursor emissions, respectively. The plots display differences for each grid square of the modeling domain, color-coded by the magnitude of the delta deciview difference. If the differences between the modeled control scenarios were merely numerical artifacts or “noise,” they would manifest as random dots of different colors on these plots. Instead, the plots show smoothly changing areas of color, as would be expected in the real atmosphere as conditions vary continuously over the area. In most cases there is a clearly distuiguishable “plume” from Coronado, representing the improvement from the Interim Strategy relative to the Coronado BART Control Strategy at locations where Coronado has an impact.

    40 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix D.5 Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A: Memorandum SRP Submitted to ADEQ Regarding Numerical Noise Issues Associated with CAMx Modeling: “To address the EPA comment regarding whether the CGS Better-than-BART CAMx analysis is influenced by numerical `noise', Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ, September 22, 2016.

    The only plot that shows numerical noise is for a day when an Interim Strategy option and the Coronado BART Control Strategy had the same emissions. For such days, modeled differences would be expected to be zero, except for the effect of numerical noise. This one plot shows some random variation in color in some locations, and also shows that the range of variation is very small, one millionth (10−6) of a deciview or less, which suggests that the maximum numerical artifact is approximately 10−6 dv. The smallest deciview difference seen in the prong 2 test was 0.00001 (10−5) dv,41 which is ten times as large as the estimated 10−6 dv maximum numerical artifact. This analysis provides additional evidence that the two test prong results are not just the result of model “noise,” but rather indicate actual visibility improvement under the Interim Strategy compared to the Coronado BART Control Strategy and no degradation relative to Baseline.

    41See Table 8, average across all Class I areas for average worst 20% days under IS4.

    We also note that the modeling demonstration was done with a higher emission rate for SO2 for both Units 1 and 2 for scenario IS2 and without the facility-wide SO2 emissions cap that was included in the final SIP revision. When these restrictions on SO2 emissions are considered, they will result in additional improvements in visibility under the Interim Strategy, as compared with the modeling results.

    Finally, we note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not specify a minimum delta deciview difference between the modeled scenarios that must be achieved in order for a BART alternative to be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress than BART. Rather, it allows for a straight numerical test, regardless of the magnitude of the computed differences. Accordingly, given that the modeling results submitted by ADEQ show that the Interim Strategy will result in improved visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with 2014 Baseline Emissions (prong 1) and will result in improved visibility, on average, across all Class I areas, compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy (prong 2), we propose to find that ADEQ has demonstrated that the Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART under the two-prong modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).

    ii. BART Alternative Final Strategy

    With respect to the Final Strategy, ADEQ did not conduct modeling but did provide a summary of expected emissions under the Final Strategy, as compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy, as shown in Table 9. ADEQ explained that emissions of NOX and PM10 would be equivalent under the SCR Option and the Coronado BART Control Strategy, but emissions of SO2 would be lower under the Final Strategy than under the Coronado BART Control Strategy. 42 The Shutdown Option would result in greater emission reductions for all three visibility-impairing pollutants (i.e., SO2, NOX, and PM) compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy.

    42 Addendum to the Coronado SIP Revision, page 5, section 3.1.2.

    Table 9—Estimated Emissions for NOX, PM, and SO2 Under the Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Final Strategy Scenario Unit SO2 Annual
  • emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Combined
  • emissions of
  • unit 1 and
  • unit 2
  • (tpy)
  • NOX Annual
  • emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Combined
  • emissions of
  • unit 1 and
  • unit 2
  • (tpy)
  • PM Annual
  • emissions
  • (tpy)
  • Combined
  • emissions of
  • unit 1 and
  • unit 2
  • (tpy)
  • Coronado BART Control Strategy Unit 1
  • Unit 2
  • 1,285
  • 1,366
  • 2,651 1,044
  • 1,366
  • 2,410 482
  • 512
  • 994
    Final Strategy—SCR Unit 1
  • Unit 2
  • 964
  • 1,025
  • a 1,970 1,044
  • 1,366
  • 2,410 482
  • 512
  • 994
    Final Strategy—Shutdown Unit 1
  • Unit 2
  • 0
  • 1,025
  • a 1,080 0
  • 1,366
  • 1,366 0
  • 512
  • 512
    a annual emission cap.

    The emission reductions associated with the Final Strategy will occur after 2018, which, as explained below, is the deadline for achieving all necessary emissions reduction under a BART alternative. Therefore, the Final Strategy by itself clearly would not meet the requirements for a BART alternative. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the Coronado BART Alternative as a whole will result in greater reasonable progress than BART, we have considered whether the Final Strategy, once it is implemented, will provide for ongoing visibility improvement, as compared with the BART Control Strategy. In particular, we have evaluated whether the Final Strategy meets both criteria of the greater-emissions-reduction test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), i.e., that the distribution of emissions under the alternative measure is not substantially different than under BART and that the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions than BART. Because all emissions under both the Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Final Strategy are from Coronado, it is clear that the distribution of emissions is not substantially different under the two strategies. Furthermore, because both the SCR Option and the Shutdown Option would provide for an aggregate reduction in visibility-impairing pollutants and no increases in any single pollutant, as compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy, we conclude that the Final Strategy will result in greater emission reductions than the Coronado BART Control Strategy. Therefore, we propose to find that implementation of the Final Strategy will ensure that the Coronado BART Alternative will continue to achieve greater reasonable progress than the BART Control Strategy after 2025.

    In summary, we propose to find that ADEQ has demonstrated that the Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than the Coronado BART Control Strategy through 2025 and that the Final Strategy will ensure greater reasonable progress after 2025. Therefore, we propose to find that ADEQ properly determined under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART at Coronado.

    2. Requirement that all necessary emission reductions take place during period of first long-term strategy.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze, i.e., by December 31, 2018. The Regional Haze Rule further provides that, to meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed description of the alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.43

    43 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

    As noted above, the Coronado SIP Revision incorporates the Coronado Permit Revision, which includes conditions implementing both the Interim and Final Strategies. In addition to the emission limitations for NOX, PM10, and SO2 listed in Table 1 above, the Coronado Permit Revision includes compliance dates, operation and maintenance requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.

    The compliance date for the Interim Strategy in the Coronado Permit Revision is December 5, 2017. Accordingly, the Coronado SIP Revision ensures that all emission reductions associated with the Interim Strategy will occur by December 31, 2018 and, as explained before, those emissions reductions by themselves are sufficient to ensure greater reasonable progress under the two-prong modeling test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). While the compliance dates for the Final Strategy in the Coronado Permit Revision are later than December 31, 2018, the Final Strategy and its associated emission reductions are not necessary to demonstrate that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART during the period of the first long-term strategy. Rather, as stated before, the Final Strategy and its associated emissions reductions will ensure that the Coronado BART Alternative will continue to achieve greater reasonable progress than the BART Control Strategy after 2025. Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision will ensure that all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy and therefore meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).

    3. Demonstration that emissions reductions from alternative measure will be surplus.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002.44 As noted by ADEQ, all of the emission reductions required by the Coronado BART Alternative are surplus to reductions resulting from measures applicable to Coronado as of 2002.45 Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado BART Alternative complies with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).

    44 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_planning.pdf.

    45Id., page 9, section 2.3.5.

    In sum, we propose to find that the Coronado BART Alternative meets all of the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

    C. The EPA's Evaluation of Other Applicable Requirements 1. Enforceable Emission Limits

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emissions limitations as necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. In order to be considered enforceable, emission limits must include associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In addition, the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations expressly require SIPs to include regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for applicable emissions limitations.46 We have reviewed the Coronado Permit Revision and found that it includes the appropriate NOX, SO2, and PM10 emission limits for the BART Alternative, as well as the associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.47 Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision meets the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for enforceable emission limitations.

    46See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c).

    47 The spreadsheet titled “FIP Requirement comparison.xlsx” in the docket for this action compares the requirements for Coronado in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP and the parallel requirements in the Coronado Permit Revision.

    2. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements

    The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.48 The EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for six common pollutants: PM, ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), SO2, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Using a process that considers air quality data and other factors, the EPA designates an area as “nonattainment” if the area does not meet the NAAQS or contributes to violations of a NAAQS in a nearby area. RFP, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to attainment of the NAAQS and means annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant(s) for the purpose of ensuring timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS.

    48 CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

    The Coronado SIP Revision includes a demonstration of “non-interference” under CAA section 110(l).49 In particular, ADEQ considered whether the Coronado SIP Revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or RFP, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. A summary of ADEQ's analysis and our evaluation of that analysis follows.

    49 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages 10-15 and Addendum pages 6-7.

    a. Demonstration of Non-Interference With NAAQS Attainment and RFP Requirements

    ADEQ noted that Coronado is located near St. Johns, Arizona in Apache County, which is designated as “in attainment,” “unclassifiable/attainment,” or “unclassifiable” for the following NAAQS: CO, Pb, NO2, ozone (2008 NAAQS), PM2.5 (1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS), PM10, and SO2 (1971 NAAQS). ADEQ also noted that it has recommended an attainment/unclassifiable designation for this area for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but the area has not yet been designated. The state has also recommended an attainment/unclassifiable designation as part of the ongoing designations process for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but the area does not have a final designation.50 ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with attainment focused on the NAAQS for PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, and ozone because ambient levels of these pollutants are affected by emissions of PM10, SO2, and/or NOX, which are the pollutants of concern from Coronado.

    50 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 5, page 12. ADEQ has also recommended that Apache County be designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See Letter from Douglas Ducey, Arizona, to Alexis Strauss, EPA (September 27, 2016).

    With repect to the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS, ADEQ noted that the curtailment periods under the Interim Strategy would result in additional PM2.5 and PM10 reductions beyond those currently required in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. With respect to the Final Strategy, ADEQ explained that, while the Shutdown Option would significantly reduce facility-wide PM emissions compared to the Coronado BART Control Strategy, the SCR Option would result in increases in emissions of sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) and thus emissions of PM10 and primary PM2.5 once the SCR is installed. Nonetheless, citing the TSD for the Coronado Permit Revision, ADEQ explained that “the dispersion modeling analysis indicates that these emissions increases will comply with the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5” and that “both options would achieve significant emission reductions of SO2 and NOX . . . , which is an effective strategy for reducing secondary PM2.5 formation.” Given that no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure continued attainment of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, ADEQ concluded that the Coronado BART Alternative will not result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or with RFP requirements for these NAAQS.

    We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and RFP requirements. The area where Coronado is located is designated unclassifiable/attainment or unclassifiable for each of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, so there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or FIPs that rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure attainment of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the Interim Strategy and the Shutdown Option of the Final Strategy, the Coronado BART Alternative will result in greater reductions of PM10 and PM2.5 than would otherwise be required under the applicable implementation plan for Arizona (including both the PM10 emission limits for Coronado in the approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP). While the SCR Option under the Final Strategy would allow for a small increase (compared to existing SIP and FIP requirements) in emissions of PM10 and primary PM2.5 when the SCR is installed, we find that ADEQ has demonstrated that these increases will not result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or with RFP requirements for these NAAQS.

    With respect to the SO2 NAAQS, ADEQ determined that all options under the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy would result in SO2 emissions that are equal to or lower than allowed under the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. Given that no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS, ADEQ concluded that the Coronado BART Alternative will not result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS or with RFP requirements.

    We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the SO2 NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and RFP requirements. The area where Coronado is located has not yet been designated under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, so there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or FIPs that rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. Furthermore, during both the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy, implementation of the Coronado BART Alternative will result in greater SO2 reductions than would otherwise be required under the applicable implementation plan for Arizona (including both the SO2 emission limits for Coronado in the approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the associated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP). Therefore, it is clear that the implementation of the Coronado BART Alternative will not result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS or with RFP requirements for the SO2 NAAQS.

    With respect to the NO2 and ozone NAAQS, ADEQ noted that both the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy would require additional NOX reductions beyond those required in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, but that the Interim Strategy would require fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. Nonetheless, ADEQ explained that Apache County does not rely on the Arizona Regional Haze FIP to ensure continued attainment of the NO2 and ozone NAAQS or to meet any RFP requirements and that facility-wide emissions of NOX at Coronado will continue to be reduced under the Coronado BART Alternative compared to current levels. Therefore, ADEQ concluded that the BART Alternative will not result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the NO2 or ozone NAAQS or with RFP requirements for these NAAQS.

    We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the NO2 and ozone NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and RFP requirements. Coronado is located in an area that is designated unclassifiable/attainment for the NO2 NAAQS and the 2008 ozone NAAQS and has not yet been designated for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, so there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or FIPs that rely on emission limitations at Coronado to satisfy any attainment or RFP requirements for ozone or NO2. Acordingly, while the Coronado SIP Revision requires fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP between December 5, 2017 and December 31, 2025, these additional reductions are not necessary for purposes of attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or for RFP.

    In summary, because the Coronado SIP Revision will require equivalent or lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2 for all future years, compared to the emission levels currently allowed under the applicable implementation plan (including both the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze FIP), in an area that is designated in attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not yet been designated for all NAAQS, we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP.

    b. Demonstration of Non-Interference With Other CAA Requirements

    ADEQ explained that the following “other applicable requirements” are potentially relevant to the Coronado SIP Revision:

    • Regional Haze under sections 169A and 169B of the CAA • Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) • Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for Air Toxics • New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)

    With respect to PSD, ADEQ referred to the TSD for the Coronado Permit Revision,51 which provides ADEQ's best available control technology determination for H2SO4, PM10, and PM2.5, as well as NAAQS and PSD increment modeling for PM10 and PM2.5. We concur with ADEQ that the documentation for the Coronado Permit Revision establishes that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interefere with the PSD requirements of the CAA. Furthermore, implementation of the Coronado BART Alternative would not affect compliance with the applicable MACT or NSPS requirements. Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with these requirements.

    51 Coronado Permit Revision, Appendix C.

    With respect to Regional Haze requirements, ADEQ noted that during implementation of both the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy, the Coronado BART Alternative will result in greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than the Coronado BART Control Strategy. For the reasons explained above, we agree that ADEQ has demonstrated that the Coronado BART Alternative would result in greater reasonable progress than the Coronado BART Control Strategy. Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with the visibility protection requirements of the CAA.

    Finally, although not expressly addressed by the State in its submittal, we have considered whether the curtailment requirements under the Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision would interefere with the requirements of CAA section 123 concerning dispersion techniques. Section 123 provides that the degree of emission limitation required by a SIP may not be affected by “any other dispersion technique,” which is defined to include “intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants varying with atmospheric conditions.” 52 The EPA's implementing regulations for CAA section 123 define “intermittent control system” as “a dispersion technique which varies the rate at which pollutants are emitted to the atmosphere according to meteorological conditions and/or ambient concentrations of the pollutant, in order to prevent ground-level concentrations in excess of applicable ambient air quality standards.” 53 The curtailment periods in the Interim Strategy do not allow for varied emission rates according to meteorological conditions and/or ambient concentrations of the pollutant. Rather, the curtailment period for each year is selected based on recent and expected emission control performance, regardless of meteorological conditions and ambient pollutant concentrations. In addition, the curtailment periods are not intended to prevent violations of ambient air quality standards. Therefore, we propose to find the curtailment requirements comply with CAA Section 123.

    52 42 U.S.C. 7423(a) and (b).

    53 40 CFR 51.100(nn).

    In summary, we propose to find that that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements of the CAA.

    IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, the EPA proposes to approve the Coronado SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because this approval would fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we also propose to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado. Finally, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that have either been superseded by previously approved revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the Coronado SIP Revision.

    V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    As explained above, the Coronado SIP Revision will result in reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared to the existing Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP requirements. While the Coronado SIP Revision will result in fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP would have required between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions remain at or below current levels until 2025, after which it will require NOX emissions reductions equivalent to or greater than would have been required under the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. Furthermore, Coronado is located in area that is designated attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not yet been designated for each of the current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations.

    VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the state permit provisions described in the proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

    VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only a single facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule applies to only a single facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. The owner of facility affected by this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical standards in this action.

    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The documentation for this decision is contained in section V above.

    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA proposes to determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Coronado is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The EPA proposes that the provisions of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the Coronado SIP revision.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart D—Arizona 2. Section 52.120 is amended by: a. Adding in paragraph (d), under the table heading “EPA-Approved Source-Specific Requirements” an entry for “Coronado Generating Station” after the entry for “Cholla Power Plant;” b. Adding in paragraph (e), under the table heading “Table 1-EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures” an entry for “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station, excluding Appendix B” after the entry for “Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for Arizona Public Service Cholla Generating Station”.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 52.120 Identification of plan.

    (d) * * *

    EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation Arizona Department of Environmental Quality *         *         *         *         *         *         * Coronado Generating Station Permit #64169 (as amended by Significant Revision #63088) Cover Page and Attachment “E”: BART Alternatives December 14, 2016 [Insert date of publication of final rule], [insert Federal Register citation of final rule] Permit issued by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Submitted on December 15, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (e) * * *

    Table 1—EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures [Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1 Name of SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment
  • area or
  • title/subject
  • State submittal
  • date
  • EPA approval
  • date
  • Explanation
    The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans) *         *         *         *         *         *         * Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station, excluding Appendix B Source-Specific December 15, 2016 [Insert date of publication of final rule], [Insert Federal Register citation of final rule] BART Alternative for Coronado Generating Station adopted December 14, 2016. *         *         *         *         *         *         * 1 Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
    3. Section 52.145 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1). b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) through (vi). c. Removing and reserving paragraph (f).
    [FR Doc. 2017-08543 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 64 [CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 02-123; DA 17-76] Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Services Program AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau or CGB) seeks comment on the scope of application of the technical standard for user equipment and software used with video relay service (VRS) and the extent to which such a rule is necessary and appropriate for functionally equivalent communication.

    DATES:

    Comments are due June 12, 2017. Reply Comments are due July 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), through the Commission's Web site http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal service mailing address, and CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123.

    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.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (202) 418-0996, email [email protected], or Eliot Greenwald, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2235, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    • 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.

    This is a summary of document DA 17-76, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, document DA 17-76, adopted on January 17, 2017 and released on January 17, 2017, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123. The Report and Order, DA 17-76, is published elsewhere in this issue. The full text of document DA 17-76 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) 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.

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (844) 432-2272 (videophone), or (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    Document DA 17-76 does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Synopsis

    1. The Commission's TRS interoperability and portability rules are intended, among other things, to allow VRS users to make and receive calls through any VRS provider, and to choose a different default provider, without changing the VRS access technology they use to place calls. The Relay User Equipment (RUE) Profile addresses this problem by specifying a basic interface that is intended to enable a user to use the same equipment and software with any default provider without experiencing any inconvenience or disruption of basic communications functions.

    2. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau pursuant to authority delegated by the Commission in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, et. al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, seeks additional comment on the extent to which adoption of a rule applying the RUE Profile to provider-distributed VRS user equipment and software is necessary and appropriate for functionally equivalent communication.

    3. First, the Bureau seeks additional comment on the user experience with provider-supplied user equipment and software. To what extent can users currently use the features and functions of provider-supplied equipment and software when making and receiving calls through other providers, or after switching to another default provider? To the extent that user equipment and software supplied by one provider performs less effectively with other providers, which functions are most problematic? Do the answers to these questions vary depending on the specific user equipment and software used by a consumer, and if so, how? How feasible is it currently for third parties, including open source and academic institutions, to innovate in providing new relay user equipment or to provide relay user equipment tailored to specific user groups or application scenarios, such as customer service or government call centers or public safety answering points (PSAPs)?

    4. Second, the Bureau seeks comment on the appropriate scope of application of the RUE Profile. There are a number of possible approaches. One possible approach could be to require RUE compliance for all user equipment and software, including equipment and software provided prior to the designated compliance deadline. As an alternative, to avoid imposing retrofitting costs on VRS providers, the Commission could require RUE compliance only for new user equipment and for new versions of user software. Under a third, more limited alternative, the Commission could require VRS providers to make RUE-Profile-compliant user equipment or software available to those users affirmatively requesting such equipment or software, as well as to provide information on their Web sites indicating how to obtain such user equipment and software. Which operating system platforms should be supported under this alternative? Under a fourth alternative, the Commission could make no further changes to its VRS interoperability and portability requirements. The Bureau seeks comments on the relative costs and benefits of these alternatives. In this regard, CGB invites commenters to submit additional specific cost information quantifying the costs of the three alternatives outlined above. The Bureau also seeks comment on the providers' claim that “forcing provider endpoints to adhere to the RUE Profile would require that providers remove any innovative or useful features of their endpoints that are not specified in the RUE Profile and subject their networks to lower security than they employ today.” What specific aspects of the RUE Profile would require removal of innovative or useful features, and what kinds of innovative or useful features would need to be removed? What specific aspects of the RUE Profile would subject networks to lower security?

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), the Bureau has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed document DA 17-76. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments specified in the DATES section. The Commission will send a copy of document DA 17-76, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    6. In document DA 17-76, the Bureau seeks comment on whether the scope of application of the RUE Profile should be expanded beyond the interface between provider networks and user equipment employing ACE software, to apply more generally to the interface between provider networks and provider-supplied user equipment and software. Comment is sought on a variety of alternatives, including the alternative of leaving the rule as is.

    Legal Basis

    7. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 225, 251, 255, 303, 316, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, and section 106 of the CVAA; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 225, 255, 303, 316, 615a-1, 615c, 617.

    Listing of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    8. The proposals in document DA 17-76 will affect obligations of VRS providers, who are classified by the Census Bureau as “all other telecommunications.”

    • All Other Telecommunications.

    • VRS Providers, which are generally classified within the broad category of “All Other Telecommunications.”

    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    9. Document DA 17-76 does not include new or modified reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements, except for compliance with a potentially broader application of the RUE Profile technical standard, to apply more generally to the interface between a VRS provider and provider-supplied user equipment and software.

    Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    10. Regarding the possible broadening of the application of the RUE Profile, document DA 17-76 seeks comment on a variety of alternative approaches, including alternatives with minimal or no impact on small entities.

    Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Commission's Proposals

    11. None.

    Ordering Clauses

    Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 225 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 225, 303(r), and the authority delegated by the Commission in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program et al., Report and Order, published at 78 FR 40582, July 5, 2013, document DA 17-76 is adopted.

    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document DA 17-76, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Federal Communications Commission. Karen Peltz Strauss, Deputy Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08487 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 80 Thursday, April 27, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, Palouse Ranger District; Idaho; Moose Creek Project AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and initiate scoping process; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Palouse Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests (NCF) is gathering information to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to identify and assess potential impacts on the environment as a result of the Moose Creek Project in Latah County, Idaho. The proposed action would use timber harvest and fuels treatment in the West Fork Potlatch River subwatershed in an overarching effort to improve forest health, reduce the risk of potential catastrophic wildfires, and provide for long-term social, ecological, and economic sustainability.

    DATES:

    The scoping comment period will be 30 days. To ensure consideration, comments must be received no later than May 30, 2017. The draft environmental impact statement is expected October 2017 and the final environmental impact statement is expected May 2018. Those who wish to establish standing to object under 36 CFR part 218 should submit scoping comments no later than 30 days after publication of this Notice of Intent or during 45-day comment period following distribution of the Draft EIS.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted at the addresses indicated below.

    (a) Via mail or hand delivery: Stephanie Israel, Moose Creek IDT Leader, Palouse Ranger District, 1700 Highway 6, Potlatch, Idaho 83855.

    (b) Via email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Israel, NEPA Planner (North Zone), Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests, (208) 476-8344 or [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This process is being conducted pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and Forest Service NEPA guidelines. Additionally, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the public scoping process will allow members of the general public to provide NCF comments on potential impacts to historic and cultural resources for the proposed action. An objection period for the Draft Record of Decision will be provided, consistent with 36 CFR part 218.

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose of the Moose Creek project is to treat areas originally analyzed in the late 1990s and early 2000s as part of the West Fork Potlatch EIS. When the previous analysis was performed, silvicultural prescriptions identified certain stands that would require follow-up treatment by 2022 in order to continue efforts of restoring western white pine and other early seral tree species to the landscape. Restoring the landscape to conditions where white pine and early seral tree species are present is desired because these stands are more resilient to disturbance such as fire, harmful insects and disease pathogens. Current stands are primarily composed of grand fir and Douglas-fir which are much less resilient to disturbance. If left untreated, these current conditions would likely lead to a decline in forest health and put future ecological, societal, and economical values at risk.

    There is a need to decrease the risk of potential catastrophic wildfire which could threaten private residences within the wildland urban interface near the town of Bovill. The current presence of dead and dying trees combined with the high probability of increased mortality associated with the existing stands is resulting in hazardous fuel loading within the watershed. Treating these affected areas by reducing hazardous ladder fuels would reduce nutrient competition for desired species and decrease the risk of high intensity, high severity, and rapidly moving wildfire.

    There is also a need to begin trending toward long-term recovery of existing soil conditions within the watershed. Regional soil standards require actions be designed to keep detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) from exceeding 15%. Current soil conditions already exceed that level in some units, and although the proposed action would cause additional DSD and impaired productivity initially, initiating restoration efforts toward a long-term trend of recovery for overall soil productivity must be identified and implemented. It is estimated that long-term recovery would occur within 30-50 years.

    Proposed Action

    The proposed action would include regeneration timber harvest of approximately 1,600 acres. Hazardous fuels reduction and site-preparation activities (underburning activity, slash and burning of machine piles) would be applied following harvest activities. An additional 300 acres of hand, mechanical, or prescription fire fuels reduction would be conducted in non-harvest areas. Proposed harvest activities would require construction of approximately 10 miles of new system road to be gated after use to restrict public access and construction of approximately 4.4 miles of temporary roads to be decommissioned after use. Approximately 2 miles of existing roads will be reconstructed and reconditioned. Compaction of existing skid trails and/or landings will be implemented to improve soil conditions, at a minimum in units currently exceeding the 15% DSD threshold.

    Relocate and decommission a 0.8 mile section of Road 377 and construct 1.1 miles of new road and a 40-foot precast bridge across Feather Creek. The section of road proposed for relocation is in a meadow that floods every spring which poses a threat to fish habitat and creates annual access and maintenance issues. The proposed re-route and bridge crossing would provide safe, consistent access to the land, reduce maintenance costs and protect the stream from unnecessary contamination. The Forest Service will work with the Latah County Highway District to acquire the legal access rights needed for the proposed realignment.

    Restore Cougar Meadow area to improve range functions by removing or re-contouring portions of an existing railroad berm in Cougar Meadows. Reconnecting the floodplain and Cougar Creek channel where they are currently separated would improve the meadow's ability to hold water into the summer. Construction of two additional stockponds is proposed to reduce animal pressure from stream channels and help draw cattle away from the riparian meadows.

    Possible Alternatives

    Alternatives will be developed based on comments received during scoping period. At this time the agency is anticipating a minimum of two alternatives: 1. No-action and 2. Proposed Action

    Responsible Official

    Forest Supervisor, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.

    Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The Responsible Official will determine whether to adopt the proposed action or another alternative, in whole or in part, and what mitigation measurements and management requirements will be implemented.

    Scoping Process

    This notice of intent initiates the scoping process, which guides the development of the environmental impact statement.

    It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such manner that they are useful to the agency's preparation of the environmental impact statement. Therefore, comments should be provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer's concerns and contentions.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

    Dated: April 13, 2017. Glenn P. Casamassa, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08496 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a planning meeting of the Virginia Advisory Committee to the Commission (VA SAC) will convene by conference call at 12:00 p.m. (EDT) on Thursday, May 4, 2017. The purpose of the meeting is to approve the project proposal and to discuss project planning for the committee's hate crimes project.

    DATES:

    Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Public call-in information: Conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference call ID: 417838#.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Interested members of the public may listen to the discussion by calling the following toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference call ID: 417838#. Please be advised that before placing them into the conference call, the conference call operator will ask callers to provide their names, their organizational affiliations (if any), and email addresses (so that callers may be notified of future meetings). Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free conference call-in number.

    Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the discussion by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the operator with the toll-free conference call-in number: 1-888-601-3861 and conference call ID: 417838#.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office approximately 30 days after each scheduled meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425 or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=279; click the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone numbers, email or street address.

    Agenda I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall —Planning Meeting —Discuss and Approve Hate Crime Project Proposal —Discuss Project Planning II. Other Business Adjournment FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, at [email protected] or by phone at 202-376-7533.

    Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of an administrative holdup on the notice.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08541 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-055] Carton-Closing Staples From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective April 20, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik at (202) 482-6905, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On March 31, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received an antidumping duty (AD) petition concerning imports of carton-closing staples from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form on behalf of North American Steel & Wire, Inc./ISM Enterprises (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a producer of carton-closing staples.2

    1See Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties, dated March 31, 2017 (the Petition), at Volumes I and II.

    2Id., at Volume I.

    On April 4, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.3 The petitioner filed responses to the request on April 6, 2017.4

    3See Letters from the Department to the petitioner entitled, “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Carton-Closing Staples from the People's Republic of China: Supplemental Questions,” dated April 4, 2017 (Supplemental Questionnaire).

    4See Letter from the petitioner to the Department entitled, “Petitioners' Responses to Department's April 4, 2017 Supplemental Questionnaire Regarding the Antidumping Duty Petition,” dated April 6, 2017 (Supplemental Response).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the domestic industry producing carton-closing staples in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed this Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.5

    5See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on March 31, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are carton-closing staples from the PRC. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6 As a result of the responses submitted by the petitioner, we have revised the original scope.7

    6See Supplemental Questionnaire; see also Supplemental Response and Letter from the petitioner, re: “Petitioner's Scope Clarification,” dated April 10, 2017, and Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, re: “Second Revision to the Scope of the Investigation,” dated April 13, 2017.

    7See Appendix I.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,8 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on May 10, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (also limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Monday, May 22, 2017.

    8See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See 19 CFR 351.303 (describing general filing requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) and Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaire

    The Department requests comments from interested parties regarding the appropriate physical characteristics of carton-closing staples to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaire. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the subject merchandise in order to report the relevant factors and costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe carton-closing staples, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on May 10, 2017, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET May 22, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the record of this less-than-fair-value investigation.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the Petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that carton-closing staples, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product, and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see “AD Investigation Initiation Checklist: Carton-Closing Staples from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Determination of Industry Support for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Carton-Closing Staples from the People's Republic of China. This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its 2016 production of the domestic like product.13 The petitioner states that it is the only known producer of carton-closing staples in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.14

    13See Volume I of the Petition, at I-7 and Exhibit I-1.

    14Id., at I-2, I-7 and Exhibits I-1 and I-2.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition, the Supplemental Response, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established U.S. industry support.15 First, the Petition established support from U.S. domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).16 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.17 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.18 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    15See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    16See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    17See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    18Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigation that it is requesting the Department initiate.19

    19Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.20 The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by the impact on the domestic industry's market share; underselling and price depression or suppression; lost sales and revenues; decline in wages, hours, and employment; decline in shipments; low capacity utilization rates; and decline in profitability.21 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.22

    20See Volume I of the Petition, at I-16, I-17 and Exhibit I-14.

    21Id., at I-11 through I-28 and Exhibits I-10, I-11 and I-13 through I-20; see also Supplemental Response, at 11-14 and Exhibit I-SQ-8.

    22See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petition Covering Carton-Closing Staples from the People's Republic of China.

    Allegation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegation of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate an investigation of imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the initiation checklist.

    Export Price

    The petitioner based export prices (EP) on price quotations for the sale of carton-closing staples to U.S. customers, obtained from an on-line marketplace, as well as on a price quote from a PRC producer of carton-closing staples.23 The petitioner made deductions from U.S. price, as appropriate and consistent with the sale and delivery terms, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and unrebated value-added tax, where applicable.24

    23See Volume II of the Petition, at 5-6 and Exhibits II-4(A), II-4(B), II-4(C); see also Supplemental Response at, Exhibit II-SQ-2, 4.

    24See Volume II of the Petition, at 6-7, 9 and Exhibits II-4(A), II-4(B), II-4(C) and II-6(A-E); see also Supplemental Response, at 16 and Exhibits II-SQ-2, 4.

    Normal Value

    The petitioner stated that the Department has identified the PRC as a non-market economy (NME) country as recently as the week before the petitioner filed the petition, and the Department has not since that time published any determination concluding that the PRC is a market economy.25 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for the PRC has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of this investigation. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    25See Volume II of the Petition, at 1.

    The petitioner claims that Thailand is an appropriate surrogate country because it is a market economy country that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Thailand is available to value all material input factors.26 Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we determine that it is appropriate to use Thailand as a surrogate country for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination.

    26See Volume II of the Petition, at 2.

    Factors of Production

    The petitioner based the FOPs for materials and energy on its own consumption rates in the production of carton-closing staples in the United States.27 The petitioner asserts that the production process for carton-closing staples is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the PRC.28 The petitioner valued the estimated factors of production using surrogate values from Thailand, as discussed below.29

    27See Volume II of the Petition, at 9-10 and Exhibits II-7(A), II-9(C), II-7(H).

    28See Volume II of the Petition, at 9-10.

    29Id., at 9-13 and Exhibits II-7(A), II-9(C), II-7(H); see also Supplemental Response, at 17-19 and Exhibits II-SQ-3, II-SQ-7 and 8.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    The petitioner valued the FOPs for certain raw materials (i.e., steel wire, steel wire rod, etc.) and packing materials using public import data for Thailand obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) applicable for the POI.30 The petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.31 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.32 The Department determines that the surrogate values used by the petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

    30See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II-7 and Supplemental Response, at Exhibit II-SQ-7 and 8.

    31See Volume II of the Petition, at 10 and Exhibit II-7(C).

    32Id.

    Valuation of Labor

    The petitioner has not included FOPs for direct or indirect labor in its NV calculations, as noted in Volume I of the Petition,33 where the petitioner stated that its labor figures for the POI may not be representative of carton-closing staple production under normal conditions.34 The petitioner notes that the exclusion of labor FOPs from the NV calculation is a conservative approach, as PRC producers incur labor costs which would, normally, raise the NV.35

    33Id., at 11; see also Volume I of the Petition, at 22-23.

    34See Volume I of the Petition, at 22-23.

    35See Volume II of the Petition, at 11.

    Valuation of Energy

    The petitioner valued electricity, natural gas, and water to calculate the NV of integrated production of carton-closing staples (drawing wire rod into wire).36 The petitioner used GTA data during the POI to value natural gas using the average unit value of imports of natural gas into Thailand.37 The petitioner applied that rate to its usage rates.38 The petitioner valued electricity and water using publicly available data from the Thai Investment Board and Thai Provincial Electrical Authority, respectively, for May 2015, which the petitioner inflated for the POI.39

    36See Volume II of the Petition, at 11-12.

    37See Volume II of the Petition, at 12 and Exhibits II-7(C,D); see also Supplemental Response at Exhibit II-SQ-7.

    38See Volume II of the Petition, at 11-12 and Exhibit II-7(C,D,E) and II-8(B).

    39 See Volume II of the Petition, at 12 and Exhibit II-7(E).

    Valuation of Factory Overhead, Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, and Profit

    The petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, selling, general and administrative expenses based on the 2015 consolidated financial statements of L.S. Industry Co., Ltd., a Thai producer of steel nails, which the petitioner asserts is merchandise comparable to carton-closing staples because steel nails are also produced from steel wire rod or steel wire.40 The petitioner calculated a profit rate for L.S. Industry Co., Ltd. by adding its other gains and losses to its operating profit, and dividing the result by the sum of cost of sales and SG&A expenses. The petitioner calculated profit values for each product covered by the sales offers/quotes by multiplying the profit rate by the calculated cost of production (COP) of each of the 15 product types. The resulting profit values were added to the COP values for the 15 product types to arrive at total COP plus profit for each product.41

    40See Volume II of the Petition, at 4-5, 12-13 and Exhibit II-7(F).

    41See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit II-7(F).

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margins for carton-closing staples from the PRC range from 13.76 percent to 263.43 percent.42

    42See Supplemental Response, at 19 and Exhibit II-SQ-9.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation

    Based upon the examination of the Petition, we find that the Petition meets the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating an AD investigation to determine whether imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we intend to make our preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.43 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.44 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this AD investigation.45

    43See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    44See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    45Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in AD cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to the investigation and, if necessary, base respondent selection on the responses received. For this investigation, the Department will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petition. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    Producers/exporters of carton-closing staples from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than 5:00 p.m. ET on May 5, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.46 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application in the PRC investigation are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.47 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and have been selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that companies from the PRC submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by the respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. Companies not filing a timely Q&V response will not receive separate rate consideration.

    46See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

    47 Although in past investigations this deadline was 60 days, consistent with 19 CFR 351.301(a), which states that “the Secretary may request any person to submit factual information at any time during a proceeding,” this deadline is now 30 days.

    Use of Combination Rates

    The Department will calculate combination rates for certain respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in an NME investigation. The Separate Rates and Combination Rates Bulletin states:

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.48

    48See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the government of the PRC via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery of the public version to the government of the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determination by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of carton-closing staples from the PRC are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.49 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated;  50 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    49See section 733(a) of the Act.

    50Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 51 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.52 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Interested parties should review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    51See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    52See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. ET on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.53 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petition filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 54 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    53See section 782(b) of the Act.

    54See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008).

    Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation is carton-closing staples. Carton-closing staples may be manufactured from carbon, alloy, or stainless steel wire, and are included in the scope of the investigation regardless of whether they are uncoated or coated, regardless of the type of coating.

    Carton-closing staples are generally made to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification ASTM D1974/D1974M-16, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all carton-closing staples meeting the scope description are included in the scope. Carton-closing staples include stick staple products, often referred to as staple strips, and roll staple products, often referred to as coils. Stick staples are lightly cemented or lacquered together to facilitate handling and loading into stapling machines. Roll staples are taped together along their crowns. Carton-closing staples are covered regardless of whether they are imported in stick form or roll form.

    Carton-closing staples vary by the size of the wire, the width of the crown, and the length of the leg. The nominal leg length ranges from 0.4095 inch to 1.375 inches and the nominal crown width ranges from 1.125 inches to 1.375 inches. The size of the wire used in the production of carton-closing staples varies from 0.029 to 0.064 inch (nominal thickness) by 0.064 to 0.100 inch (nominal width).

    Carton-closing staples subject to this investigation are currently classifiable under subheadings 8305.20.00.00 and 7317.00.65.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-08526 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-001] Potassium Permanganate From the People's Republic of China; 2016; Partial Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On March 15, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the People's Republic of China (PRC). Based on Chongqing Changyuan Group Limited's (Changyuan) timely withdrawal of its request for review, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to Changyuan.

    DATES:

    Effective April 27, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    Background

    On January 10, 2017, the Department published a notice of “Opportunity to Request Administrative Review” of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC.1 On January 31, 2017, the Department received timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from the PRC from Pacific Accelerator Limited (PAL) and Changyuan.2 Based upon those requests, on March 15, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) or the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the Order3 covering the period January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016.4 The Department initiated the administrative review with respect to PAL and Changyuan.5 On April 12, 2017, Changyuan withdrew its request for review.6

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 82 FR 2951 (January 10, 2017).

    2See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from PAL and Changyuan “RE: Request for Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China” (January 31, 2017).

    3See Antidumping Duty Order; Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China, 49 FR 3897 (January 31, 1984) (Order).

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 13795 (March 15, 2017).

    5Id.

    6See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from PAL and Changyuan “Re: Amendment of Administrative Review Request: Antidumping Duty Order on Potassium Permanganate from the People's Republic of China (A-570-001)” (April 12, 2017).

    Partial Rescission

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. Changyuan timely withdrew its review request and no other party requested a review of Changyuan. Accordingly, we are rescinding this review, in part, with respect to Changyuan, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). This review will continue with respect to PAL.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the company for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as the only reminder to importers for whom this review is being rescinded, as of the publication date of this notice, 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 presumption that reimbursement of the 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 APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, 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 terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(l) of the and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08527 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-18] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-18 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN27AP17.003 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-18 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(l) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Canada

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 0 million Other $195 million TOTAL $195 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): None.

    Non-MDE:

    Non-MDE items and services under consideration for sale are follow-on support for five (5) CC177 aircraft (Canada's designator for the C-17), including contractor logistics support (CLS) provided through the Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program (GISP), in-country field services support, alternate mission equipment, major modification and retrofit, software support, aircraft maintenance and technical support, support equipment, personnel training and training equipment, additional spare and repair parts, publications and technical documentation, and other U.S. Government and contractor engineering, logistics and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Air Force (QCR)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: CN-D-QZZ—$1.3B—15 Nov 06

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered. or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 19, 2017

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Canada—Sustainment Support for C-17 Aircraft

    The Government of Canada has requested a possible sale of follow-on support for five (5) CC177 aircraft (Canada's designator for the C-17), including contractor logistics support (CLS) provided through the Globemaster III Integrated Sustainment Program (GISP), in-country field services support, aircraft maintenance and technical support, support equipment, alternate mission equipment, software support, spares, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering and logistics support services, publications and technical documentation, and major modification and retrofit kits support. The total estimated program cost is $195 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by sustaining the military capabilities of Canada, a NATO ally that has been, and continues to be, an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress in the world, including through its involvement in military, peacekeeping, and humanitarian operations. The sustainment of Canada's C-17s will ensure the country's continued capability to rapidly deploy its forces, as well as the continued interoperability between the U.S. and Canadian Air Forces' C-17s.

    The proposed sale of defense articles and services is required to maintain the operational readiness of the Royal Canadian Air Force C-17 aircraft. Canada's current contract supporting its five (5) C-17s will expire on 20 September 2017. The Royal Canadian Air Force will have no difficulty absorbing this support.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    Sources of supply will award contracts when necessary to provide the defense articles ordered if items ordered are not available from U.S. stock or are considered lead-time away.

    The prime contractor will involve the following contractors:

    Boeing Company, Long Beach, California Boeing Company Training Systems, St. Louis, Missouri Lockheed Martin Corporation/MFC, Lexington, Kentucky

    There are no known offsets. Any offset agreements will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Canada. There is an on-going foreign military sales case providing C-17 sustainment services. There are currently 13 contractors from Boeing in-country providing contractor technical services support on a continuing basis.

    There will be no adverse impact to U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-08495 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 17-10] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Valadez, (703) 697-9217 or Pamela Young, (703) 697-9107; DSCA/DSA-RAN.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 17-10 with attached Policy Justification.

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN27AP17.002 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 17-10 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Iraq

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $ 40.6 million Other $255.0 million Total $295.6 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Four thousand four hundred (4,400) M16A4 Rifles Forty-six (46) M2 50 Caliber Machine Guns One hundred eighty-six (186) M240B Machine Guns Thirty-six (36) M1151 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) Seventy-seven (77) M1151 up-armored HMMWVs

    Non-MDE: All necessary equipment and accessories to outfit two Peshmerga Regional Brigades and two support artillery battalions, to include twelve (12) 3 kilowatt tactical quiet generator sets, body armor, helmets, and other Organization Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE); small arms and associated accessories including tripods, cleaning kits, magazines, and mounts; mortar systems and associated equipment; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) detection and protective equipment; dismounted and mounted radio systems; commercial navigation equipment including compasses, binoculars, and Geospatial Position System (GPS) limited to the Standard Positioning System (SPS); M1142 HMMWVs; medical equipment; Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP); cargo and transportation equipment, including light tactical vehicles, medium tactical vehicles, water trucks, fuel trucks, and ambulances; thirty-six (36) refurbished M119A2 105mm howitzers; RF-7800V Very High Frequency (VHF) dismounted radios; spare parts, training and associated equipment related to the mentioned vehicles and artillery systems.

    (iv) Military Department: Army (ADI, ADJ)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: None

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: April 18, 2017

    * As defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Government of Iraq—Equipment for Two Peshmerga Infantry Brigades and Two Support Artillery Battalions

    The Government of Iraq has requested a possible sale of the equipment necessary to fully outfit two full Peshmerga Regional Brigades of light infantry, as well as the equipment necessary to outfit two artillery battalions that will ultimately provide support to those regional brigades. These artillery battalions and infantry brigades will operate under the Kurdistan Regional Governments Ministry of Peshmerga (KRG MOP) with the concurrence of the central government. Requested equipment includes the following: (4,400) M16A4 rifles; (46) M2 50 caliber machine guns; (186) M240B machine guns; (36) M1151 HMMWVs; (77) M1151 up-armored HMMWVs; (12) 3 Kilowatt Tactical Quiet Generator sets; body armor, helmets, and other Organization Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE); small arms and associated accessories including tripods, cleaning kits, magazines, and mounts; mortar systems and associated equipment; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) detection and protective equipment; dismounted and mounted radio systems; commercial navigation equipment including compasses, binoculars, and Geospatial Position System (GPS) limited to the Standard Positioning System (SPS); M1142 HMMWVs; medical equipment; Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP); cargo and transportation equipment, including light tactical vehicles, medium tactical vehicles, water trucks, fuel trucks, and ambulances; (36) refurbished M119A2 105mm howitzers; spare parts, training and associated equipment related to the mentioned vehicles and artillery systems.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States, by supporting Iraq's capacity to degrade and defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Iraq will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    There are a number of contractors involved in this effort, including but not limited to AM General, Oshkosh Defense, Navistar Defense, Harris Radio, and Colt Corporation. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the deployment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor personnel to Iraq.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    [FR Doc. 2017-08455 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Proposed Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion, in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority of Louisiana (CPRA) has requested approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District (USACE-MVN) to construct, maintain, and operate a sediment diversion structure off the right descending bank of the Mississippi River, at approximately 60.7 miles above “Head of Passes” in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The proposed project, referred to as the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD), would be designed to deliver sediment, freshwater, and nutrients from the Mississippi River into Barataria Basin. USACE-MVN intends to serve as the lead federal agency in preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). At this time, Cooperating Agencies on the EIS includes the: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of the Interior (DOI), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The EIS for CPRA's proposed MBSD project will inform a permit decision for a Department of Army (DA) permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 10), and permissions under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Section 408). In addition to informing USACE-MVN's decisions, the EIS will inform decisions made by the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (NRDA LA TIG) regarding restoration evaluation and related funding decisions relevant to the Deepwater Horizon natural resource damage settlement, any decision by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS) that may be required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and any additional regulatory or permit processes that may be required for the MBSD Project, to the extent practicable. USACE-MVN filed an original Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DEIS for the MBSD project which was published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2013 (78 FR 61843). This Supplemental NOI serves to supplement the original NOI to update the MBSD project details, contact information for the proposed MBSD project, scoping provisions, and other pertinent information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions concerning the DA permit process should be directed to Mr. Brad LaBorde at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Attn: CEMVN-OD-SE, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118, by phone (504) 862-2225, or by email at [email protected] Questions and comments concerning the Section 408 permissions should be directed to Mr. Brad Inman at U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, Attn: CEMVN-PM-P, 7400 Leake Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118, by phone (504) 862-2124, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Proposed Action. CPRA describes the MBSD project as a large scale, complex ecosystem restoration project. When operated, a maximum nominal design flow of 75,000 cubic feet per second of sediment-laden water would be diverted from the Mississippi River into the Barataria Basin to reconnect and re-establish the natural or deltaic sediment deposition process between the Mississippi River and the Barataria Basin by delivering sediment, freshwater, and nutrients to reduce land loss and maintain and sustain wetlands. The sediment diversion would be approximately 1 to 2 miles long and primary features would include a gated diversion structure, a conveyance channel, and a potential back structure (for flood protection). The secondary features of the diversion would include a pump station or other mean of forced drainage, bridge or culvert crossing at Louisiana Highway 23, concrete side walls, earthen guide levees, scour protection and erosion control, and culverted road crossings. Under Section 10 and Section 404, the District Engineer will render a permit decision for the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into the waters of the U.S., as well as work, to include the installation and maintenance of structures, in navigable waters of the U.S., based on the public interest review and Section 404(b)(1) Clean Water Act guidelines. Under 33 U.S.C. 408, the Chief of Engineers reviews the potential impacts associated with proposals, operation or construction of which use, alter or modify existing USACE-MVN projects based on whether the project would be injurious to the public interest and the potential for the proposed project to impair existing or future Civil Works projects. If constructed as proposed, the MBSD footprint would directly impact 52.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 4.5 acres of waters of the U.S. The MBSD project footprint would also impact and require the potential relocation of numerous public utilities and facilities. In addition, the MBSD project would directly and/or indirectly impact multiple USACE-MVN projects, including but not limited to, projects within the Mississippi River & Tributaries Program; the Mississippi River (federal navigation) Ship Channel, the Gulf to Baton Rouge, Louisiana project; and the future New Orleans to Venice (NOV) Hurricane Protection Levee project.

    2. Alternatives. The EIS will address an array of alternatives based on the project purpose and need. USACE must identify the “overall” project purpose, evaluate practicable alternatives, and determine whether the project is water dependent. Some alternatives will be considered from, but not limited to, existing studies including the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Program, Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) Ecosystem Restoration Study, LCA Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated Dredging Feasibility Study, the State and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Myrtle Grove Delta Building Diversion Modeling Effort in Support of LCA Medium Diversion at Myrtle Grove with Dedicated Dredging, the 2012 Louisiana Coastal Master Plan (LCMP), and the 2017 LCMP. The LA TIG may develop alternatives based on considerations under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) NRDA restoration planning process and associated decision-making. Alternatives for purposes of any additional regulatory or permitting processes also would be developed and evaluated to the extent practical. Other alternatives may be developed through the NEPA scoping process.

    3. Scoping. Scoping is the NEPA process utilized for seeking public involvement in determining the range of alternatives and significant issues to be addressed in the EIS USACE-MVN invites full public participation to promote open communication on the issues surrounding the proposed action. The public will be involved in the scoping and evaluation process through advertisements, notices, and other means. Project information will also be available on USACE-MVN's Web site at: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permits/Mid-Barataria-Sediment-Diversion-EIS/. All individuals, organizations, NGOs, affected Indian tribes, and local, state, and Federal agencies that have an interest are urged to participate in the scoping process. Public scoping meeting(s) will be held to present information to the public and to receive comments from the public. The date, time, and location of the scoping meeting(s) will be announced once determined on the USACE-MVN public notice Web page (http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Public-Notices/) and in any other forms deemed appropriate. Comments will also be accepted via email or postal mail; USACE-MVN will provide information to the public as to where, when, and how to submit comments. Scoping meetings may happen in coordination with NOAA and the NRDA LA TIG in order to present to the public, solicit comments and inform other required authorizations and collaborative restoration evaluation involving the proposed project.

    4. Potentially Significant Issues. The EIS will analyze the potential impacts on the human and natural environment resulting from the project. The scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination processes will help identify and define the range of potential significant issues that will be considered. Important resources and issues evaluated in the EIS could include, but are not limited to, the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on tidal wetlands and other waters of the U.S.; aquatic resources; commercial and recreational fisheries; wildlife resources; essential fish habitat; water quality; cultural resources; geology and soils including agricultural land and prime and unique farmland; hydrology and hydraulics; air quality; marine mammals; threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat; net impacts on ecosystem services; navigation and navigable waters; induced flooding; employment; land use; property values; tax revenues; population and housing; community and regional growth; environmental justice; community cohesion; public services; recreation; transportation and traffic; utilities and community service systems; and cumulative effects of related projects in the study area. USACE-MVN will also consider issues identified and comments made throughout scoping, public involvement, and interagency coordination. USACE-MVN expects to better define the issues of concern and the methods that will be used to evaluate those issues through the scoping process.

    5. Environmental Consultation and Review. USACE-MVN anticipates developing an EIS that meets NEPA requirements of several federal agencies evaluating whether to authorize and/or fund the proposed project. At this time the cooperating agencies includes: EPA, DOI, NOAA, NMFS, USFWS, and USDA. Other federal interests in the development of the EIS include those related to NMFS's obligations under the MMPA and the NRDA LA TIG Federal trustees' obligations under OPA NRDA regulations, Final Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, and the Consent Decree entered into in In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” In the Gulf of Mexico. In addition to the federal interests noted above for general development of the EIS, USFWS will assist in documenting existing conditions and assessing effects of project alternatives through the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act consultation procedures. Consultation will be accomplished with USFWS and NMFS concerning threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat per the Endangered Species Act. NMFS will be consulted regarding the effects of this proposed action on Essential Fish Habitat per the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. USACE-MVN anticipates CPRA will submit an application for an incidental take authorization to NMFS in accordance with the MMPA.

    Questions regarding consultation or compliance requirements described herein, will be directed to the appropriate jurisdictional agency.

    6. The USACE-MVN will consult with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the appropriate Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPO), per the National Historic Preservation Act.

    7. Availability. The DEIS is presently scheduled to be available for public review and comment by April 30, 2020. All comments received throughout the review process will become part of the administrative record for the proposed MBSD project and subject to public release.

    8. NRDA LA TIG NOI: The Deepwater Horizon NRDA LA TIG has published a Notice of Initiation of Restoration Planning that seeks to facilitate public involvement and streamline future processes by specifically seeking public comment on a controlled river diversion in Barataria Basin, such as the MBSD, in a future Restoration Plan under OPA. To facilitate the potential consideration of the MBSD under OPA, it is the intent of the NRDA LA TIG Trustees to assist the USACE in the preparation of the EIS for the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08413 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0054] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Consolidated State Plan Assurances Template AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a non-substantive change to an existing collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 5, 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-0054. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 226-62, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Melissa Siry, (202)260-0926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Note:

    OESE requests public comment on a non-substantive change to an existing collection approved under 1810-0576 currently running a separate comment period under ED-2017-ICCD-0021. OESE is seeking OMB approval to use these non-substantive changes to the assurances data collection instrument by May 17, 2017. You may provide comments to the assurances template under 1810-0576 ED-2017-ICCD-0054 by May 5, 2017. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Consolidated State Plan Assurances Template.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0576.

    Type of Review: Non-substantive change to an existing collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 52.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 108,155.

    Abstract: On March 9, 2017, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801-808), Congress approved a joint resolution disapproving the U.S. Department of Education's (Department's) regulations related to State plans, including consolidated State plans, statewide accountability systems, and data reporting. The President signed the Congressional resolution on March 27, 2017, which means that the regulations have no force or effect. As a result, the Department updated the assurances that each State must submit in order to receive FY 2017 funding to align only with the statutory assurances required in ESEA Section 8304. The revised assurances template includes an annotated version of ESEA Section 8304 which specifically references consultation requirements and two certifications that SEAs are assuring to by completing the assurances template. Finally, we included a reference, with no associated burden, to other approved forms the SEA will need to complete.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08494 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0057] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Loan Discharge Applications (DL/FFEL/Perkins) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 26, 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-0057. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 224-84, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Title of Collection: Loan Discharge Applications (DL/FFEL/Perkins).

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0058.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 30,051.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 15,027.

    Abstract: The Department of Education is requesting an extension of the currently approved information collection. This information collection is necessary for loan holders in the FFEL, Direct Loan, and Perkins Loan programs to obtain the information that is needed to determine whether a borrower qualifies for a closed school or false certification loan discharge. The loan discharge regulations in all three loan programs require borrowers who seek discharge of their FFEL, Direct Loan, or Perkins Loan program loans to request a loan discharge and provide their loan holders with certain information in writing.

    This information collection includes the following five loan discharge applications that are used to obtain the information needed to determine whether a borrower qualifies for a closed school discharge, false certification—ATB, false certification—disqualifying status, false certification—unauthorized signature/unauthorized payment or unpaid refund loan discharges.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08515 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-133-000] Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 6, 2017, Northwest Pipeline LLC (Northwest), having its principal place of business at 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 filed in the above referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations requesting authorization to Northwest proposes to (1) remove and replace 1,700 feet of 30-inch pipeline and (2) remove 1,550 feet of previously abandoned-in-place 26-inch pipeline located in Whatcom County, Washington referred to as Nooksack Line Lowering Project (Project), all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The Project is designed to reduce the exposure to the pipeline caused by river channel migration and improve reliability for the benefit of existing customers. The total cost of the Project is approximately $16,585,331. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (886) 208-3676 or TYY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Richard N. Stapler Jr., Business Development, 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84108, by phone at (801) 584-6883, by fax (801) 584-6496 or by emailing [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9), within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08472 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-172-000] Navitas TN NG, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 13, 2017, Navitas TN NG, LLC (Navitas), 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),1 requesting that the Commission make a service area determination to allow it to enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities across the Tennessee/Kentucky border without further Commission authorization. Navitas also requests a determination that it qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as more fully described 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.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq.

    Specifically, Navitas, a Tennessee local distribution company providing natural gas service to customers in north-central Tennessee and regulated by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, request a service area determination to operate across the Tennessee/Kentucky border in order to service a small number of Kentucky customers.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Thomas Hartline, Navitas Utility Corporation, 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or call (714) 242-4064, or by email [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

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

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08474 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-171-000] Navitas KY NG, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 13, 2017, Navitas KY NG, LLC (Navitas), 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, California 92626, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA),1 requesting that the Commission make a service area determination to allow it to enlarge or expand its natural gas distribution facilities across the Kentucky/Tennessee border without further Commission authorization. Navitas also requests a determination that it qualifies as a local distribution company for purposes of section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) and a waiver of all accounting and reporting requirements and other regulatory requirements ordinarily applicable to natural gas companies under the NGA and the NGPA, all as more fully described 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.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717, et seq.

    Specifically, Navitas, a Kentucky local distribution company regulated by the Kentucky Public Service Commission and providing natural gas service to approximately 125 customers in Albany, Clinton County Kentucky in the southern portion of the state adjacent to the Tennessee border, request a service area determination to operate across the Tennessee border into Pickett County Tennessee near Byrdstown in order to access a natural gas supply interconnection, the B&W Pipeline, to service its Kentucky customers. Navitas' application is related to B&W Pipeline, Inc.'s application for a limited jurisdiction blanket certificate of public convenience and necessity filed in Docket No. CP17-78-000 on March 17, 2017.

    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Thomas Hartline, Navitas Utility Corporation, 3186D Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or call (714) 242-4064, or by email [email protected]

    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

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

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 11, 2017.

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08473 Filed 4-26-17; 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 exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-99-000.

    Applicants: Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Horse Hollow Wind III, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170419-5209.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-100-000.

    Applicants: Post Wind, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Post Wind, LLC.

    Filed Date: 4/19/17.

    Accession Number: 20170419-5210.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1438-000.

    Applicants: Radford's Run Wind Farm, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5019.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1439-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 3317 WAPA & East River Electric Power Interconnection Agr to be effective 4/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5094.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1440-000.

    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 791, Utilities Agreement with MDT (Armington Slope) to be effective 4/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1441-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Changes to ISO-NE Financial Assurance Policy to be effective 9/12/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1442-000.

    Applicants: Axiall, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based Rate to be effective 5/26/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5137.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1443-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2014 Southwestern Power Administration Amendatory Agreement Sixth Extension to be effective 4/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1444-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-04-20_Day-Ahead Margin Assurance Payment (DAMAP) filing to be effective 4/21/2017.

    Filed Date: 4/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170420-5168.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/11/17.

    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 20, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08471 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 2323-216] TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

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

    a. Application Type: Request to Amend License Articles 401, 402, 403 and 406 to lower Somerset Reservoir elevation target for loon nesting.

    b. Project No: P-2323-216.

    c. Date Filed: April 10, 2017.

    d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.

    e. Name of Project: Deerfield River Project.

    f. Location: The project is located on the Deerfield River, in Windham and Bennington counties, Vermont, and Franklin and Berkshire counties, Massachusetts.

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

    h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese, TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc., 4 Park Street, Suite 402, Concord, NH 03301-6373, (603) 225-5528.

    i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury, (202) 502-6065, [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests: May 5, 2017.

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-2323-216.

    k. Description of Request: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc. requests approval to amend license Articles 401, 402, 403, and 406 as well as the approved Vermont Flow Monitoring and Reservoir Operations Plan to adjust the target elevation of Somerset Reservoir during the common loon nesting period from 2,128.58 feet mean sea level (msl) to 2,128.23 feet msl, as requested by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Vermont Division of Fish and Wildlife to protect observed loon nests. The licensee also requests, with agency support, to change the target elevation period from May 1 to May 15 to align with the end of the minimum flow constraint at the Searsburg development and avoid conflicting resource requirements. Finally, the licensee proposes, with agency support, to adjust the start of operations data collection for reporting to the resources agencies from April 1 to April 15.

    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. This filing may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits (P-2323) in the docket number field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email [email protected], for TTY, call (202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant.

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

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

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

    Dated: April 20, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08475 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17NW; Docket No. CDC-2017-0011] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a new information collection project titled “A Novel Framework for Structuring Industry-Tuned Public-Private Partnerships and Economic Incentives for U.S. Health Emergency Preparedness and Response”. This data collection will conduct interviews with industry leaders and survey private sector organization managers to systematically evaluate and explore the partnership preferences of private sector organizations, specifically when they are interacting or considering an interaction with government agencies.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0011 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, of the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    A Novel Framework for Structuring Industry-Tuned Public-Private Partnerships and Economic Incentives for U.S. Health Emergency Preparedness and Response—New—Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Despite the important role of public-private partnerships in supporting the U.S.'s public health preparedness and response mission, many partnership efforts are not successful due to poorly aligned incentives or lack of awareness of external market factors. There is little research or information on private sector incentive structures and partnership opportunities and barriers specific to public health preparedness and response. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of public-private partnership incentives from the perspective of private sector industries within the public health preparedness and response space.

    CDC proposes to collect information from the private industry leaders in the public health preparedness and response space to accomplish this goal. Study activities will include (1) identifying public-private partnership incentives and target industries for public health preparedness and response; (2) conducting interviews with industry leaders in person or via telephone to identify related public health emergency preparedness activities and partnership opportunities and barriers; and (3) surveying private sector organization managers using on-line technology (Qualtrics) on key issues and attractiveness of partnership opportunities and incentives; and develop a framework to identify partnership target organizations, opportunities, and incentives to promote public health emergency preparedness capabilities.

    The information collection request is composed of two parts: (1) Interviews and (2) an on-line general survey distributed. The targeted interviews will seek respondents in the following eight sectors: Pharmaceutical/life sciences (n = 8), health IT/mobile (n = 8), retailers/distributors (n = 6), academia/research organization (n = 6), hospital/healthcare provider (n = 5), health insurance (n = 4), logistics/transportation (n = 4), and charitable organization/foundation (n = 4). The interview questions and the information collected will vary significantly across the different sectors.

    The survey portion of the information collection will be a larger survey that will be sent to 200 individuals to reach a total sample population of 100 (assuming a 50% response rate). The interviews and survey will only be administered one time to each individual respondent. CDC plans to conduct interviews and surveys within six months after OMB approval.

    Members of the research team will conduct the interviews. Surveys will be conducted using the secure online software Qualtrics, and respondents will receive an email with a unique link that will direct them to the Qualtrics survey platform. All data will then be transferred to CDC's preferred Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP) client, where it will be stored and later accessed securely by members of the research team. After this transfer, all copies of the data that reside outside of the SFTP will be destroyed. Only the research team will have access to the interview transcripts and survey responses that will link responses to personally identifiable information. Any printed or hand-written documents containing PII will be stored securely in locked file cabinets when not in use, and will be destroyed once the information has been scanned or otherwise transferred into electronic files (which will also be transferred to the SFTP client). Access to the SFTP will require the user to enter a host address, username, password and port number, all of which will only be provided to the research team.

    CDC will make the collected data available only to research team members for analysis and will maintain the data for the duration of the study. Identifiable information may be filed by the name of respondent on the SFTP, but it will not be removed from the SFTP in that format. Any information removed from the SFTP client to be shared with outside parties will be presented in aggregated and de-identified form, unless otherwise compelled by law. CDC will retain and destroy all records in accordance with the applicable CDC Records Control Schedule.

    OPHPR is requesting an approval period of one year to collect this information. There are no cost burdens to respondents or record keepers for this data collection. The total time burden to respondents is 70 hours. See a summary of the annualized burden hours in the below table.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total
  • burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Private Sector Organization Senior Leader Interview Plan 45 1 1 45 Private Sector Organization Manager Survey Plan 100 1 15/60 25 Total 70
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08540 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17ABU; Docket No. CDC-2017-0037] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed data collection project titled “Emergency Zika Package: Zika Reproductive Health Call-Back Survey ZRHCS), 2017.”

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0037 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Zika Reproductive Health Call-Back Survey (ZRHCS), 2017—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In May 2015, the World Health Organization reported the first local mosquito born transmission of Zika virus in the Western Hemisphere, with autochthonous cases identified in Brazil. In response to the Zika virus outbreak, and evidence that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause microcephaly and other adverse pregnancy and infant outcomes, CDC's Emergency Operations Center has continued to work at the highest level of activation since February 8, 2016. To date, local transmission has been identified in at least 50 countries or territories in the Americas; within the United States, widespread mosquito born transmission has been documented in the territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, and more localized transmission has been observed in Florida and Texas. In addition in the continental United States, there has been a large number of travel-related cases with infection occurring through mosquito born and sexual transmission.

    Given the adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes associated with Zika virus infection during pregnancy, increasing access to effective contraception is a key countermeasure for preventing unintended pregnancies that might otherwise be affected by Zika. In addition, even in the absence of disease outbreaks that can lead to negative pregnancy and birth outcomes, access to contraception is needed to help prevent the 45% of pregnancies in the United States that are unintended. Given that the proportion of pregnancies that are unintended varies widely across states, it is important to identify populations with high unmet need for contraception to implement targeted strategies for increasing access to and availability of effective contraception. Additionally, it is important for women who are at risk of becoming pregnant unintentionally, or who are planning a pregnancy, to be knowledgeable of behaviors for preventing mosquito born and sexual transmission of Zika and recommendations for waiting to get pregnant after they or their partner have returned from an area with Zika.

    The objective of this assessment is to collect scientifically valid, current information on various aspects of Zika knowledge and prevention behaviors from a representative sample of adult women of reproductive age (aged 18-49 years) in 14 states/territories, including information: (1) The use of contraception among women wishing to avoid or delay pregnancies that might otherwise be affected by Zika; (2) barriers to access and use of contraception; (3) knowledge of and adherence to mosquito prevention strategies and use of condoms to minimize the risk of sexual transmission; and (4) frequency of travel to Zika areas and knowledge of and adherence to travel recommendations. The 14 jurisdictions included have had widespread local transmission, are at high risk for local transmission, and/or have a disproportionately high number of travel-related cases.

    The information collected will be provided to state and territory health departments to provide a basis on which to develop emergency response plans for potential outbreaks and make decisions regarding the distribution of finite resources to prevent Zika virus infection during pregnancy. Given the potential for new outbreaks and increases in cases in areas with Zika as the summer travel and mosquito season approaches, an interim data set and report would be made available to states no later than June, 2017. Additionally, in the event that a jurisdiction has an increase in Zika cases or newly reported local transmission, interim data will be analyzed and provided within 10 business days to aid in emergency response planning.

    Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Women aged 18-49 years who completed the main BRFSS survey Recruitment text 14,508 1 1/60 242 Women aged 18-49 years from areas with local Zika transmission Call-back Survey and Consent, Version A 2,000 1 10/60 333 Women aged 18-49 years from areas where travel related Zika predominates Call-back Survey and Consent, Version B 12,000 1 12/60 2,400 State BRFSS Coordinators Data Submission Layout 14 8 3 336 Total 3,311
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08493 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-0879; Docket No. CDC-2017-0044] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the information collection project titled “Information Collections to Advance State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agency and System Performance, Capacity, and Program Delivery.” Information, collected across a range of public health topics using standard modes of administration (e.g., web, in-person, phone), will be used to assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies; make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies; fill CDC gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will strengthen surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory science; improve CDC's support and technical assistance to states and communities.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0044 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Information Collections to Advance State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agency and System Performance, Capacity, and Program Delivery (OMB Control No. 0920-0879, Expiration date, 3/31/2018)—Extension—Office for State, Tribal Local and Territorial Support (OSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services is to help provide the building blocks that Americans need to live healthy, successful lives. As part of HHS, CDC's mission is to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health—through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats. CDC and HHS seek to accomplish its mission by collaborating with partners throughout the nation and the world to: Monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.

    CDC is requesting a three-year approval for a generic clearance to collect information related to domestic public health issues and services that affect and/or involve state, tribal, local and territorial (STLT) government entities.

    The respondent universe is comprised of STLT governmental staff or delegates acting on behalf of a STLT agency involved in the provision of essential public health services in the United States. Delegate is defined as a governmental or non-governmental agent (agency, function, office or individual) acting for a principal or submitted by another to represent or act on their behalf. The STLT agency is represented by a STLT entity or delegate with a task to protect and/or improve the public's health.

    Information will be used to assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies; make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies; fill CDC and HHS gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will strengthen surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory science; improve CDC's support and technical assistance to states and communities. CDC and HHS will conduct brief data collections, across a range of public health topics related to essential public health services.

    CDC estimates up to 30 data collections with STLT governmental staff or delegates, and 10 data collections with local/county/city governmental staff or delegates will be conducted on an annual basis. Ninety-five percent of these data collections will be web-based and five percent telephone, in-person, and focus groups. The total annualized burden of 54,000 hours is based on the following estimates.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • respondent
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden (in hours)
    State, Territorial, or Tribal government staff or delegate Web, telephone, in-person, focus group 800 30 1 24,000 Local/County/City government staff or delegate Web, telephone, in-person, focus group 3,000 10 1 30,000 Total 54,000
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08491 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-1039; Docket No. CDC-2017-0040] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed revision to the information collection project titled “Information Collection on Cause-Specific Absenteeism in Schools.” Changes include a revised title. The proposed title is “Information Collection on Cause-Specific Absenteeism in Schools and Evaluation of Influenza Transmission within Student Households.” The project will continue to address the original aim of improving our understanding of the role of influenza-like illness (ILI)—specific absenteeism in schools in predicting community-wide influenza transmission.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0040 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Information Collection on Cause-Specific Absenteeism in Schools and Evaluation of Influenza Transmission within Student Households (OMB Control Number 0920-1039; expires 12/31/2017)—Revision—National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarantine (DGMQ), requests approval of an information collection project that will allow for improved understanding of the role of influenza-like illness (ILI)-specific absenteeism in schools in predicting community-wide influenza transmission. The collection will also allow for within-household influenza transmission where students have been absent from school due to ILI. CDC is seeking three-year clearance to collect this data.

    Since receiving Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval in December 2014, CDC enrolled 651 students in the study. Of them, 58% were positive for at least one respiratory pathogen included in the Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) panel that tests for presence of 17 common respiratory viruses, and 27% of the students were found to be positive for influenza. It was demonstrated that absenteeism due to ILI in school children was highly correlated with PCR-confirmed influenza in enrolled school children and with medically-attended influenza in the surrounding community suggesting that ILI-specific school absenteeism can be considered a useful tool for predicting influenza outbreaks in the surrounding community. However, more observations during influenza seasons caused by other influenza strains are needed to make these findings more robust.

    The information collection for which approval is sought is in accordance with CDC's and DGMQ's missions to reduce morbidity and mortality in mobile populations, and to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases within the United States. Insights gained from this information collection will assist in the planning and implementation of CDC Pre-Pandemic Guidance on the use of school related measures, including school closures, to slow transmission during an influenza pandemic.

    School closures were considered an important measure during the earliest stage of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, because a pandemic vaccine was not available until October (6 months later), and sufficient stocks to immunize all school-age children were not available until December. However, retrospective review of the U.S. government response to the pandemic identified a limited evidence-base regarding the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of various school related measures during mild or moderately severe pandemics. Guidance updates will require an evidence-based rationale for determining the appropriate triggers, timing, and duration of school related measures, including school closures, during a pandemic.

    CDC staff proposes that the revised information collection for this package will target adult and child populations in a school district in Wisconsin. CDC will continue collecting reports from students absent from school due to ILI including information on individual student symptoms, vaccination status, recent travel, recent exposure to people with influenza symptoms, and duration of illness. The proposed revision will include collecting data from household members of students absent from school due to ILI. Household members will provide information on household composition, individual influenza vaccination status, presence of ILI symptoms, severity of illness, related healthcare visits, diagnosis and treatment, and missed work or school. This will be accomplished through telephone and in-person interviews.

    Findings obtained from this information collection will be used to inform and update CDC's Pre-pandemic Guidance on the implementation of school related measures to prevent the spread of influenza, especially school closures. The Guidance is used as an important planning and reference tool for both State and local health departments in the United States.

    There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized number of burden hours are 365.

    Authorizing legislation includes Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264) and Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241).

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Parents Screening Form 300 1 5/60 25 Acute Respiratory Infection and Influenza Surveillance Form 300 1 15/60 75 Students Biospecimen collection 300 1 5/60 25 Household members Household Study Form Part 1 (Day 0) 720 1 10/60 120 Household Study Form Part 2 (Day 7) 720 1 10/60 120 Total 365
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08492 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-17-17ADS; Docket No. CDC-2017-0045] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the proposed information collection project titled “Awardee Lead Profile Assessment (ALPA).” The information collection project includes a questionnaire to collect information to identify jurisdictional legal frameworks governing funded childhood lead poisoning prevention programs in the United States, and strategies for implementing childhood lead poisoning prevention activities in the United States.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2017-0045 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, of Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Awardee Lead Profile Assessment (ALPA)—NEW—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is requesting a three-year clearance for a new information collection project titled “Awardee Lead Profile Assessment (ALPA).” The goal of this project is to build on an existing childhood lead poisoning prevention program. CDC will obtain program management information from participating state and local governments that are awardees under the CDC Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (HHLPPP) FY17 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA No. CDC-RFA-EH17-1701PPHF17). This annual information collection will be used: (1) To identify common characteristics of funded childhood lead poisoning prevention programs; and (2) inform guidance and resource development in support of the ultimate program goal, which is blood lead elimination in children.

    The dissemination of these ALPA results will ensure that both funded and non-funded jurisdictions are able to: (1) Identify policies and other factors that support or hinder childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts; (2) understand what strategies are being used by funded public health agencies to implement childhood lead poisoning prevention activities; and (3) use this knowledge to develop and apply similar strategies to support the national agenda to eliminate childhood lead poisoning.

    This program management information will be collected annually from 45 awardees, using two data collection modes. We anticipate that the majority, 40 respondents, will choose the Web survey due to the ease of use, and that 5 respondents will choose the MSWord format mode.

    We estimate the time burden to be the same, 7 minutes per response, regardless of data collection mode (Web survey or Word format). This estimate is based on a 2015 survey among 35 former awardees titled “Baseline Profile of State and Local Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Programs (PROF-LEAD),” approved under the generic clearance for “Information Collections to Advance State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Health” (OMB Control No. 0920-0879; expiration date 03/31/2018). Due to its success, the PROF-LEAD questionnaire is now proposed as an annual reporting requirement for awardees under the FY17 FOA, as the ALPA questionnaire.

    There is no cost to the respondents other than their time. The total annual time burden requested is six hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • State And Local Governments (or their bona fide fiscal agents) Awardee Lead Profile Assessment (ALPA) Questionnaire—Web survey 40 1 7/60 5 ALPA Questionnaire—Word format 5 1 7/60 1 Total 6
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08539 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-17-1074] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the 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; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) Monitoring Activities (OMB Control Number 0920-1074, expires 06/30/2019)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    CDC is requesting a revision to the approved information collection under OMB Control Number 0920-1074. CDC proposes use of a revised grantee survey instrument, as well as a revised clinic-level data collection template. The number of respondents will also decrease from 31 to 30 grantees, and the total estimated annualized burden will decrease.

    Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death from cancer in the United States among cancers that affect both men and women. CRC screening has been shown to reduce incidence of and death from the disease. Screening for CRC can detect disease early when treatment is more effective and prevent cancer by finding and removing precancerous polyps. Of individuals diagnosed with early stage CRC, more than 90% live five or more years. To reduce CRC morbidity, mortality, and associated costs, use of CRC screening tests must be increased among age-eligible adults with the lowest CRC screening rates.

    The purpose of the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP): Organized Approaches to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening (CDC-RFA-DP15-1502), is to increase CRC screening rates among an applicant defined target population of persons 50-75 years of age within a partner health system serving a defined geographical area or disparate population. The CRCCP includes 30 grantees that are state governments or bona-fide agents, universities, and tribal organizations.

    The CRCCP was significantly redesigned in 2015 and has two components. Under Component 1, all grantees receive funding to support partnerships with health systems to implement up to four priority evidence-based interventions (EBIs) described in the Guide to Community Preventive Services, as well as other supporting activities (SAs). Grantees must implement at least two EBIs in each partnering health system. Under Component 2, six of the 30 grantees provide direct screening and follow-up clinical services for a limited number of individuals aged 50-64 in the program's priority population who are asymptomatic, at average risk for CRC, have inadequate or no health insurance for CRC screening, and are low income.

    Two forms of data collection have been implemented to assess program processes and outcomes. In Program Year 1, the annual grantee survey monitored grantee program implementation, including (1) program management, (2) implementation of the EBIs and SAs, (3) health information technology (IT), (4) partnerships, (5) data use, (6) training and technical assistance (TA), and (7) clinical service delivery (for programs receiving Component 2 funding only). Clinic-level data collection assessed CRCCP's primary outcome of interest—CRC screening rates within partner health systems—by measuring: (1) Partner health system, clinic, and patient population characteristics, (2) reporting period (for screening rates), (3) Chart review screening rate data, (4) Electronic Health Record (EHR) screening rate, and (5) Priority evidence-based EBIs and SAs.

    Based on feedback from grantees and internal subject matter experts, CDC proposes use of updated data collection instruments. Specifically, CDC plans to implement a revised CRCCP grantee survey that eliminates questions related to EBI and SA implementation as these data are more accurately reported at the clinic level. Conversely, CDC will implement a revised CRCCP clinic-level data collection template with additional data variables related to EBI and SA implementation, as well as monitoring and evaluation activities, at the clinic level.

    Redesigned data elements will enable CDC to better gauge progress in meeting CRCCP program goals and monitor implementation activities, evaluate outcomes, and identify grantee technical assistance needs. In addition, data collected will inform program improvement and help identify successful activities that need to be maintained, replicated, or expanded.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annualized burden hours have decreased from 210 to 204 hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs)
  • CRCCP Grantees CRCCP Annual Grantee Survey 30 1 24/60 CRCCP Clinic-level Information Collection Template 30 12 32/60 Total
    Leroy A. Richardson, Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08490 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Voluntary Acknowledgement of Paternity and Required Data Elements for Paternity Establishment Affidavits.

    OMB No.: 0970-0171.

    Description: Section 466(a)(5)(C) of the Social Security Act requires States to enact laws ensuring a simple civil process for voluntarily acknowledging paternity via an affidavit. The development and use of an affidavit for the voluntary acknowledgment of paternity would include the minimum requirements of the affidavit specified by the Secretary under section 452(a)(7) and give full faith and credit to such an affidavit signed in any other State according to its procedures. The State must provide that, before a mother and putative father can sign a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity, the mother and putative father must be given notice, orally and in writing of the alternatives to, the legal consequences of, and the rights (including any rights, if one parent is a minor, due to minority status) and responsibilities of acknowledging paternity. The affidavits will be used by hospitals, birth record agencies, and other entities participating in the voluntary paternity establishment program to collect information from the parents of nonmarital children.

    Respondents: The parents of nonmarital children and State and Tribal IV-D agencies, hospitals, birth record agencies and other entities participating in the voluntary paternity establishment program.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents/partner
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent/partner
  • Average
  • burden hours per response
  • Total burden hours
    Training 130,330 1 1 130,300 Paternity Acknowledgment Process 2,606,596 1 0.17 443,121 Data Elements 54 1 1 54 Data Elements 2,606,596 1 .08 208,528

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 782,003

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08510 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: State Plan Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity Title IV-D, OCSE-100.

    OMB No.: 0970-0017.

    Description: The Office of Child Support Enforcement has approved a IV-D state plan for each state. Federal regulations require states to amend their state plans only when necessary to reflect new or revised federal statutes or regulations or material change in any state laws, regulations, policies, or IV-D agency procedures. The requirement for submission of a state plan and plan amendments for the Child Support Enforcement program is found in sections 452, 454, and 466 of the Social Security Act.

    Respondents: State IV-D Agencies.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • (hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • State Plan (OCSE-100) 54 5 .5 135 State Plan Transmittal (OCSE-21-U4) 54 5 .25 67.5

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 202.5 hours.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected]. Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08506 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 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 Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Chemical Synthesis Facility.

    Date: June 20, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710 B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, Ph.D., Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6680, [email protected]

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; NICHD Member Conflicts Teleconference Review.

    Date: June 20, 2017.

    Time: 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Helen Huang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, OD, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, DHHS, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-8207, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 21, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08458 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

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

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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; Defibrillation Device for MRI Procedures.

    Date: May 16, 2017.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Michael P. Reilly, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7200, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-827-7075, [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 21, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08456 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice of Meeting

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

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with the attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NICHD.

    Date: June 2, 2017.

    Open: 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    Agenda: A report by the Scientific Director, NICHD, on the status of the NICHD Division of Intramural Research; talks by various intramural scientists, and current organizational structure.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Closed: 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31A, Conference Room 2A48, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Constantine A. Stratakis, MD, D(med)Sci, Scientific Director, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, Building 31A, Room 2A46, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-5984, [email protected]

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/meetings/Pages/index.aspx, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 21, 2017. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08457 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2017-0340] Certificate of Alternative Compliance for U.S. Coast Guard National Security Cutters AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces that a Certificate of Alternate Compliance was issued for the U.S. Coast Guard's National Security Cutters (WMSL Class). We are issuing this notice because its publication is required by statute. Due to their unique purpose, these vessels cannot fully comply with the masthead light provisions of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS) without interfering with their special function.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this notice, please call or email LCDR Matthew Walter, Commandant (CG-NAV-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7418, Washington, DC 20593, telephone 202-372-1565 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose

    The United States is signatory to the International Maritime Organization's International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), as amended. The special construction or purpose of some vessels makes them unable to comply with the light, shape, and sound signal provisions of the 72 COLREGS. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1605(a), Navy and Coast Guard vessels of special construction or purpose may be issued a Certificate of Alternative Compliance (COAC) authorizing alternative requirements to the 72 COLREGS. For Coast Guard vessels, the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard determines whether the vessel for which the COAC is sought complies as closely as possible with 72 COLREGS, and decides whether to issue the COAC. By law, notice of COACs must be published in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1605(d), a COAC may be issued for a class of vessels. The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, hereby finds and certifies that the U.S. Coast Guard's class of WMSL-750 vessels (also known as National Security Cutters) are a class of vessels of special construction or purpose, and that with respect to the horizontal position of the Forward and Aft Masthead navigational lights, it is not possible to comply fully with the requirements of the provisions enumerated in the 72 COLREGS Annex I, section 3(a), without interfering with the special function of these vessels. The Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, further finds and certifies that the masthead lights of the National Security Cutters are in the closet possible compliance with the applicable provisions of the 72 COLREGS and that full compliance with the 72 COLREGS would not significantly enhance the safety of the vessels' operation.

    This notice is issued in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 1605(c).

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Michael D. Emerson, Director of Marine Transportation Systems Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08528 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0139] Agency Information Collection Activities: Electronic Visa Update System AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments; revision of an existing collection of information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than May 30, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on this proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the OMB Desk Officer for Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information should be directed to the CBP Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, 90 K Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, or via email [email protected] Please note that the contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. Individuals seeking information about other CBP programs should contact the CBP National Customer Service Center at 877-227-5511, (TTY) 1-800-877-8339, or CBP Web site at https://www.cbp.gov/.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register (82 FR 11237) on February 21, 2017, allowing for a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) suggestions to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) suggestions to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. The comments that are submitted will be summarized and included in the request for approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    Title: Electronic Visa Update System.

    OMB Number: 1651-0139.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with a change to the information collected as a result of adding a question about social media to EVUS. There are no changes to the burden hours.

    Type of Review: Revision.

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Abstract: The Electronic Visa Update System (EVUS) provides a mechanism through which visa information updates can be obtained from certain nonimmigrant aliens in advance of their travel to the United States. This provides CBP access to updated information without requiring aliens to apply for a visa more frequently. The EVUS requirements apply to nonimmigrant aliens who hold a passport issued by an identified country containing a U.S. nonimmigrant visa of a designated category. EVUS enrollment is currently limited to nonimmigrant aliens who hold unrestricted, maximum validity B-1 (business visitor), B-2 (visitor for pleasure), or combination B-1/B-2 visas, which are generally valid for 10 years, contained in a passport issued by the People's Republic of China.

    EVUS provides for greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by allowing DHS to identify nonimmigrant aliens who may be inadmissible before they depart for the United States, thereby increasing security and reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry. EVUS aids DHS in facilitating legitimate travel while also enhancing public safety and national security.

    Proposed Changes

    DHS proposes to add the following question to EVUS: “Please enter information associated with your online presence—Provider/Platform—Social media identifier.” It will be an optional data field to request social media identifiers to be used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,595,904.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 3,595,904.

    Estimated Time per Response: 25 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,499,492.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08505 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2017-0010] National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Emergency Communications, SAFECOM Nationwide Survey AGENCY:

    National Protection and Programs Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; New Information Collection Request: 1670-NEW.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), Office of Cybersecurity and Communications (CS&C), Office of Emergency Communications (OEC), will submit the following Information Collection Request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until June 26, 2017. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and questions about this Information Collection Request should be forwarded to DHS/NPPD/CS&C/OEC, 245 Murray Lane SW., Mail Stop 0640, Arlington, VA 20598-0640. Emailed requests should go to [email protected]. Written comments should reach the contact person listed no later than June 26, 2017. Comments must be identified by “DHS-2017-0010” and may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Please include the docket number DHS-2017-0010 in the subject line of the message.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2006, Congress passed Public Law 109-295, which created the Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) headed by a Director of Emergency Communications. Responsibilities of the Director include assisting the Secretary in developing and implementing a program to support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters; and ensure, accelerate, and attain interoperable emergency communications nationwide.

    Title 6 U.S.C. 571(c)(4) requires the DHS Secretary through the OEC Director to conduct extensive, nationwide outreach to support and promote the ability of emergency response providers and relevant government officials to continue to communicate in the event of natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters. In order to perform this statutory regulation it is important to understand the variety of technology being used today. Additionally, 6 U.S.C. 573 requires the DHS Secretary to conduct a baseline assessment of the first responder emergency communications capabilities at least every five years.

    These authorities in addition to DHS's responsibilities through E.O. 13618 in the area of national security/emergency providers' communications require a renewed examination of baseline emergency communications capabilities.

    The Office of Emergency Communication's SAFECOM Nationwide Survey (SNS) purpose is to gather information to assess available capabilities, identify gaps and needs for emergency response providers to effectively communicate during all types of natural or man-made hazards. In order to ascertain this information the SNS will deploy four distinctive surveys across the nation addressing emergency response entities at each level of government: Federal, State and Territorial, Tribal, and Local. The SNS is built on a foundation of core elements identified by OEC and its stakeholders as “must haves” in order to achieve open and secure communications operability, interoperability and continuity. These elements are interdependent critical success factors that must be addressed to plan for and implement public safety communications capability. As such, these elements are Governance, Standard Operating Procedures, Training and Exercises, Technology, Usage and Security. The survey will encompass questions regarding each major element in order to determine a jurisdiction's level of operability, interoperability and continuity and thus their overall emergency communications capability level. Governance questions will pertain to matters related to leadership, decision making groups, agreements, funding and strategic planning. The element of Standard Operating Procedures will focus on questions related to procedures, doctrine, and practices. Training and Exercises questions will focus on needs, scope, frequency, execution and lessons learned. The Technology element questions are centered on infrastructure, functionality, performance, and redundancy. Usage questions will address frequency of use, end user proficiency, and resource capacity. The last element, Security, will contain question on identification, protection, detection, response, and recovery.

    OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    Analysis

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, Office of Emergency Communications.

    Title: The Department of Homeland Security, Office of Emergency Communications SAFECOM Nationwide Survey.

    OMB Number: 1670-NEW.

    Frequency: Once every five years.

    Affected Public: Federal, state, local, and private sector emergency response personnel.

    Number of Respondents: 3,002 annually.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 30 minutes.

    Total Burden Hours: 1,501 annual burden hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Recordkeeping Burden: $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): $120,831.68.

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Ryan Comber, Acting Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08468 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [178A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900 253G] Early Revision of Agency Information Collection for the Application for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is seeking comments on the early renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the collection of information for the Application for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University (Haskell) and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0114. This information collection expires August 31, 2017.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 26, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the information collection to: Ms. Jacquelyn Cheek, Special Assistant to the Director, Bureau of Indian Education, 1849 C Street NW., Mailstop 3609-MIB, Washington, DC 20240; facsimile: (202) 208-3312; or email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Jacquelyn Cheek, phone: (202) 208-6983.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The BIE is requesting early renewal of OMB approval for the admission forms for Haskell and SIPI. These admission forms are used in determining program eligibility of American Indian and Alaska Native students for educational services. These forms are utilized pursuant to the Blood Quantum Act, Public Law 99-228; the Snyder Act, Chapter 115, Public Law 67-85; and, the Indian Appropriations of the 48th Congress, Chapter 180, page 91, For Support of Schools, July 4, 1884. The application was revised following input from students on the form. Haskell reduced the length of the application form to a page and a half. SIPI's application did not change.

    II. Request for Comments

    The BIE requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection 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 (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. 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.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0114.

    Title: Application for Admission to Haskell Indian Nations University and to Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute.

    Brief Description of Collection: Submission of these eligibility application forms is mandatory in determining a student's eligibility for educational services. The information is collected on two forms: Application for Admission to Haskell form and SIPI form.

    Type of Review: Early revision of currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Students.

    Number of Respondents: 4,000 per year, on average.

    Frequency of Response: Once per year for Haskell; each trimester for SIPI.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 minutes per Haskell application; 30 minutes per SIPI application.

    Obligation to Respond: Response required to obtain a benefit.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,000 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Dollar Cost: $12,360.

    Authority

    These forms are utilized pursuant to the Blood Quantum Act, Public Law 99-228; the Snyder Act, Chapter 115, Public Law 67-85; and, the Indian Appropriations of the 48th Congress, Chapter 180, page 91, For Support of Schools, July 4, 1884. The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08531 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCAN01000 L10200000.XZ0000 17X LXSIOVHD0000] Northern California District Resource Advisory Council; Postponement of Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The April 2017 Northern California District Resource Advisory Council meeting has been postponed.

    DATES:

    The meeting was scheduled for April 26, 2017, in Redding, California, and will be rescheduled at a later date. We will publish a future notice with new meeting date and location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    BLM Northern California District Manager, Alan Bittner, (530) 224-2160; or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management on BLM-administered lands in northern California and northwest Nevada.

    Additional information is available in the meeting notice published on April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18308).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Patrick Wilkinson, Acting Assistant Director, Communications.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08665 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Preliminary)] Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway, provided for in subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) and imports of silicon metal alleged to be subsidized by the governments of Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On March 8, 2017, Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., Beverly, Ohio filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subsidized imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Kazakhstan, and LTFV imports of silicon metal from Australia, Brazil, and Norway. Accordingly, effective March 8, 2017, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1343-1345 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of March 14, 2017 (82 FR 16353). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on March 29, 2017, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on April 24, 2017. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4685 (May 2017), entitled Silicon Metal from Australia, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Norway: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-567-569 and 731-TA-1343-1345 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 24, 2017. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08535 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. 17-4] Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D.; Decision and Order

    On September 22, 2016, the Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D. (Respondent), of Denver, Colorado. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Respondent's DEA Certificate of Registration No. AM2281688, and the denial of any applications to renew or modify his registration, as well as the denial of “any applications for any other DEA registrations,” on the ground that he has “no state authority to handle controlled substances.” Show Cause Order, at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and 823(a)(3)).1

    1 As for the citation to 21 U.S.C. 823(a)(3), this provision is a public interest factor applicable to applicants for registration to manufacture schedule I and II controlled substances, which directs the Agency to consider the “promotion of technical advances in the art of manufacturing these substances and the development of new substances.” This provision is not applicable to this case, which involves a practitioner registered under section 823(f).

    While the Government also proposes the denial of “any applications for any other DEA registrations,” because this proceeding is based solely on Respondent's lack of state authority in Colorado, the Agency's authority to deny an application is limited to an application for a registration in Colorado.

    As to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent is registered “as a practitioner in Schedules II through V” under the above registration, at the location of “Colorado Lipidology Associates, 633 17th Street, Ste. 100, Denver, Co.” Id. The Order alleges that Respondent's registration does not expire until January 31, 2019. Id.

    As to the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that “[o]n July 19, 2016, the Colorado Medical Board suspended [Respondent's] medical license.” Id. at 2. The Show Cause Order then alleged that Respondent is “currently without authority to practice medicine or handle controlled substances in the State of Colorado, the [S]tate in which [he is] registered with” DEA, and that as a consequence, his registration is subject to revocation.2

    2 The Show Cause Order also notified Respondent of his right to request a hearing or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. Show Cause Order, at 2. Also, the Show Cause Order notified Respondent of his right to submit a Corrective Action Plan. 21 U.S.C. 824(c)(2)(C).

    Following service of the Show Cause Order, Respondent requested a hearing. The matter was placed on the docket of the Office of Administrative Law Judges and assigned to ALJ Charles Wm. Dorman who issued an order directing the Government to file evidence supporting the allegation and “any motion for summary disposition” by 2 p.m. on November 7, 2016. Briefing Schedule For Lack Of State Authority Allegations (Briefing Schedule), at 1. In the same order, the ALJ directed Respondent to file any reply to the Government's motion by 2 p.m. on November 18, 2016. Noting that in his hearing request, Respondent had sought to hold the proceeding in abeyance “pending the resolution of the Colorado [Board] matter either via a negotiated disposition or a final agency order following the hearing . . . set for June 26-30, 2017,” Resp. Hrng. Req., at 2; the ALJ ordered that “if the Respondent wishes to formally request a continuance in this case, he must do so in a written motion for continuance.” Briefing Schedule, at 1.

    On November 3, 2016, Respondent moved for a continuance of all proceedings in the matter until and including January 3, 2017. Resp.'s Mot. for Continuance, at 1. As grounds for the continuance, Respondent argued that the suspension of his state license was not a final agency action, that the state administrative case was currently being litigated, that the parties were engaged in active negotiations to resolve the matter “via a stipulated disposition that would allow [him] to return to the active practice of medicine,” and that “such a negotiated disposition may be reached within the next 45 to 60 days.” Id. at 2. Upon receipt of the motion, the ALJ ordered the Government to file a response by 2 p.m. on November 10, 2016; he also extended the deadline for the Government to file its summary disposition motion until November 18, 2016 and for Respondent to file his reply until November 30, 2016. Order for Government's Response to Respondent's Motion to Stay Proceedings, at 1.

    On November 10, 2016, the Government filed a pleading which combined its Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Continuance and its Motion for Summary Disposition. Gov.'s Opp. to Resp.'s Mot. to Stay Proceedings and Gov.'s Mot. for Summ. Disp. (hereinafter, Mot. for Summ. Disp.), at 1. With respect to Respondent's stay motion, the Government suggested that Respondent's statements regarding the timing of a negotiated resolution of the state matter was speculative. Id. at 4. The Government then cited Agency precedent to argue that “even if the period of suspension is temporary or if there is the potential that Respondent's state controlled substance privileges will be reinstated, summary disposition is warranted because `revocation is also appropriate when a state license has been suspended, but with the possibility of future reinstatement.' ” Id. (quoting Roger A. Rodriguez, 70 FR 33206, 33207 (2005) (other citations omitted)). The Government thus maintained that Respondent's Motion for Continuance should be denied. Id.

    As for the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, it argued that based on the Order of Suspension issued to Respondent by the Colorado Medical Board, he does not have “authority to prescribe, administer, or dispense controlled substances in the State of Colorado.” Mot. for Summ. Disp., at 3. The Government argued that there is no dispute as to this material fact, id. at 2, and that “[a]bsent authority by the State of Colorado to dispense controlled substances, Respondent is not authorized to possess a DEA registration in that state.” Id. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3), and Layfe Robert Anthony, 67 FR 35582 (2002)). The Government further argued that “DEA does not have statutory authority to maintain a registration if the registrant is without state authority to handle controlled substances,” and that therefore, Respondent's registration should be revoked. Id. (citation omitted).

    On November 14, 2016, the ALJ denied Respondent's Motion for Continuance. Order Denying the Respondent's Motion for Continuance, at 1. The ALJ's explained that “[i]t is settled DEA precedent `that the existence of other proceedings in which Respondent is involved is not a basis upon which to justify a stay of DEA administrative enforcement proceedings.” Id. (quoting James Alvin Chaney, 80 FR 57391, 57393 (2015)).

    On November 30, 2016, Respondent submitted a pleading captioned: “Respondent's Motion For Extension Of Time In Which To Submit His Response To The Government's Motion for Summary Disposition And, In The Alternative, His Response To The Government's Motion For Summary Disposition” (hereinafter, Extension Mot.). Therein, Respondent represented that he had “submitted a proposed Stipulation and Final Agency Order to” the Colorado Board, “which, if agreed to by the [Board], would result in the lifting of the suspension and the restoration of” his controlled substance dispensing authority in Colorado. Extension Mot., at 1-2. Respondent further represented that the proposed Stipulation was to be considered by the Board at its December 15, 2016 meeting and expressed his optimism that the Board would accept the Stipulation. Id. at 2. Further noting that the Board's decision would be dispositive of this matter either way, Respondent sought an extension of the time until December 20, 2016 to file his response to the Government's pending Motion for Summary Disposition. Id.

    Citing “the interest of administrative/judicial economy,” the ALJ granted Respondent's motion and ordered Respondent to file his evidence of reinstatement and his Response to the Motion for Summary Disposition by December 20, 2016. Order Granting Respondent's Motion for Extension in Which to Submit His Response to the Government's Mot. for Summary Disposition, at 2. On December 20, 2016, Respondent filed his Response and a Status Report. Response to Gov. Mot. for Summ. Disp. and Status Rep., at 1. Therein, Respondent advised that “the parties in [the Board's proceeding] were unable to reach a resolution and [that] the matter will proceed to a hearing” scheduled for June 26 through June 30, 2017. Id. Respondent further acknowledged that his medical license had not been reinstated. Id.

    The same day, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion. The ALJ noted that “[t]o maintain a DEA registration, a practitioner must be currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the jurisdiction in which the practitioner is registered.” R.D. at 3 (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f)). Finding that there was no dispute over the material fact that “Respondent lacks state authorization to handle controlled substances in Colorado,” the State in which he is registered with DEA, the ALJ granted the Government's Motion and recommended that Respondent's registration be revoked. Id. at 3-4.

    Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Decision. Thereafter, the ALJ forwarded the record to my Office for final agency action. Having considered the record, I adopt the ALJ's factual finding, legal conclusions and recommended order. I make the following factual findings.

    Findings of Fact

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556(e), I take official notice of Respondent's registration record with the Agency. According to the record, Respondent is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. AM2281688, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as practitioner, at the registered address of Colorado Lipidology Associates, 633 17th Street, Suite 100, Denver, Colorado. Respondent's registration does not expire until January 31, 2019.3 Accordingly, I find that Respondent has an active registration and that the Agency has jurisdiction.4

    3 Respondent may refute these findings (as well as any other finding based on my taking of official notice) by filing a properly supported motion for reconsideration no later than 10 business days from the date of this Order.

    4 I note that the Government did not submit any evidence regarding the status of Respondent's registration with its Motion for Summary Disposition. DEA's regulations do not require responsive pleading to the allegations of a Show Cause Order. Thus, the failure of a respondent to refute an allegation in his hearing request does not constitute an admission of the allegation and the Government maintains the burden of providing evidence establishing the Agency's jurisdiction as part of its Motion. The Agency has also noted in several decisions that even in those matters which are adjudicated on summary disposition, the ALJ is obligated to make findings as to the Agency's jurisdiction. See James Alvin Chaney, 80 FR 57391, 57391 n.1 (2015); Sharad C. Patel, 80 FR 28693, 28694 n.3 (2015).

    Respondent is also the holder of license number DR-36651, pursuant to which he is authorized to practice medicine as a physician by the Medical Board of Colorado. Mot. for Summ. Disp., Ex. 1, at 1. However, effective on July 19, 2016, the Board suspended Respondent's medical license “pending proceedings for suspension or revocation.” Id. at 2. According to the online records of the Colorado Division of Professions and Occupations, Respondent's suspension remains in effect as of the date of this Decision and Order. See 5 U.S.C. 556(e).

    Discussion

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Moreover, DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration. See, e.g., James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012); see also Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”).

    This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined “the term `practitioner' [to] mean[] a . . . physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f).

    Because “the controlling question” in a proceeding brought under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) is whether the holder of a DEA registration “is currently authorized to handle controlled substances in the [S]tate,” Hooper, 76 FR at 71371 (quoting Anne Lazar Thorn, 62 FR 12847, 12848 (1997)), the Agency has also long held that revocation is warranted even where a practitioner has lost his state authority by virtue of the State's use of summary process and the State has yet to provide a hearing to challenge the suspension. Bourne Pharmacy, 72 FR 18273, 18274 (2007); Wingfield Drugs, 52 FR 27070, 27071 (1987). Thus, it is of no consequence that the Colorado Medical Board has employed summary process in suspending Registrant's state license and that Respondent may prevail at the hearing schedule for late June.

    Here, there is no dispute over the material fact that Respondent is no longer currently authorized to dispense controlled substances in Colorado, the State in which he is registered. Accordingly, I adopt the ALJ's recommendation that Respondent's registration be revoked.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration AM2281688, issued to Robert Clark Maiocco, M.D., be, and it hereby is, revoked. Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I further order that any pending application of Robert C. Maiocco, M.D., to renew or modify his registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.5

    5 For the same reasons that led the Colorado Board to summarily suspend Registrant's medical license, I find that the public interest necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67.

    Dated: April 18, 2017. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08450 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration David D. Moon, D.O.; Decision and Order

    On December 8, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA or Government), issued an Order to Show Cause to David D. Moon, D.O. (hereinafter, Registrant), the holder of Certificates of Registration Nos. M9879024, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and BM2782692, in Las Vegas, Nevada, authorizing him to prescribe controlled substances in Schedules II through V.1 GX 4. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of his Certificates of Registration and the denial of any pending application for renewal or modification of Registrant's registrations on the grounds that: (1) Registrant does not have authority to dispense controlled substances in the States in which he is registered and (2) he has committed acts which render his registrations “inconsistent with the public interest.” 2 Id. at 1 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and (4)).

    1 The Registrant is also known in the Government's records as “David DeWayne Moon.” Government Exhibit (hereinafter, GX) 13 and 14.

    2 The Show Cause Order also proposed the denial of any applications by Registrant for any other DEA registrations.

    As the jurisdictional basis for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that both of Registrant's registrations expire on January 31, 2018. Id.

    As the substantive grounds for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked his Oklahoma osteopathic license, and that on August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked his Nevada osteopathic license, which resulted in the status of his Nevada State Board of Pharmacy license becoming “inactive.” Id. at 2. Thus, due to the actions of the two Boards, the Registrant is without authority to handle controlled substances in the States in which he is registered with DEA.

    The Show Cause Order alleged that on April 17, 2013, Registrant was arrested at McCarran International Airport while proceeding through a Transportation Security Administration checkpoint. Id. It further alleged that law enforcement officers found in his carry-on baggage drugs in pill bottles labeled for other people, drugs in unlabeled pill bottles, and loose drugs. Id. Based on the airport arrest, the Show Cause Order alleged that the Registrant possessed controlled substances with the intent to redistribute them to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 829(a) and (b), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 21 U.S.C. 842(a), 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(3), 21 U.S.C. 844(a), 21 U.S.C. 844a(a), and Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 453-337-.338. Id. at 4. The Show Cause Order also alleged, based on the airport arrest, that Registrant possessed prescription bottles without a label or with an unreadable or illegible label in violation of 21 U.S.C. 825(a) and 21 U.S.C. 842(a). Id.

    Based on a subsequent Government investigation and the execution of an Administrative Inspection Warrant (hereinafter, AIW), the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources (patients) and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients in violation of 21 U.S.C. 844(a) and 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), respectively. Id. Based on the execution of the AIW, the Show Cause Order also alleged that Response could not produce 32 controlled substance invoices in violation of 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5) and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). Id. The Show Cause Order also alleged, based on the AIW, that Registrant failed to take a biennial inventory of controlled substances stored at one of his registered locations in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a) and (b) and 21 CFR 1304.11(c). Id. Also pursuant to the AIW, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant had significant shortages of controlled substances at his registered address in Tulsa, Oklahoma and was missing purchase records and that Registrant failed to maintain accurate and complete records and to account for controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3), 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5), 21 CFR 1304.03, 21 CFR 1304.04, and 21 CFR 1304.21. Id. at 4-5.

    Based on another Government investigation, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant issued at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions in Nevada under a registration which listed his registered address in Oklahoma in violation of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3). Id. at 5.

    The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing each option, and the consequence for failing to elect either option. Id. at 5-6 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43).

    Adequacy of Service and Waiver

    According to the “Affidavit of Service of Order to Show Cause” submitted by a Diversion Investigator (hereinafter, DI) assigned to the DEA Tulsa Resident Office, on January 7, 2016, ten separate copies of the Show Cause Order were sent to Registrant by certified mail, first-class mail, and electronic mail to his registered addresses, as well as his last-known home and electronic mail addresses. GX 5. Specifically, the DI stated that the Government served the Show Cause Order on Registrant (1) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's registered address at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128; (2) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's registered address at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74128; (3) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's registered address at 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145; (4) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's registered address at 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145; (5) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Oklahoma at 2136 East 25th Street, Tulsa 74114; (6) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Oklahoma at 2136 East 25th Street, Tulsa 74114; (7) by certified mail, return receipt requested addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Nevada at 2814 Soft Horizon Way, Las Vegas 89135; (8) by regular first-class U.S. mail addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Nevada at 2814 Soft Horizon Way, Las Vegas 89135; (9) by electronic mail at the email address that appears in DEA's registration database for Registrant's Tulsa registered location; and (10) by electronic mail at the email address that appears in DEA's registration database for Registrant's Las Vegas registered location.3 Id. at 1-2.

    3 In Mikhayl Soliman, 81 FR 47826 (2016), I acknowledged that service by email has its limitations. See Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Int'l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1017-18 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the Government employed multiple means to serve Registrant and, as in Soliman, used the email address Registrant had previously provided it and did not receive either an error or an undeliverable message.

    According to the “Supplemental Affidavit of Service of Order to Show Cause” (hereinafter, Supplemental Affidavit) submitted by the Tulsa Resident Office DI, the certified mail, return receipt and regular first-class mailings addressed to Registrant's registered address in Tulsa, Oklahoma were returned with the notation “return to sender, vacant.” GX 6, at 1. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the mailings addressed to Registrant's registered address in Las Vegas and his last known home address in Oklahoma were not returned and the Government did not receive the certified return receipt green cards for those mailings sent certified mail, return receipt. Id. at 2. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the regular first-class mailing addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Las Vegas was not returned. Id. at 3. The Supplemental Affidavit stated that the certified mail, return receipt mailing addressed to Registrant's last known home address in Las Vegas was returned with the notation “unclaimed.” Id. at 2. According to the Supplemental Affidavit, the electronic mailings did not generate any error message that they were not sent successfully or any notification that they were undeliverable. Id. at 3.

    I find that the Government's service of the Show Cause Order on Registrant was legally sufficient. According to the Supreme Court, “due process does not require actual notice.” 4 Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 225 (2006) (citing Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 170 (2002)). Instead, the Court has repeatedly stated that, “due process requires the government to provide `notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.' ” Jones v. Flowers, supra, 547 U.S. at 226 (citing Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)). Moreover, “the Due Process Clause does not require . . . heroic efforts by the Government” to find Registrant. Dusenbery, supra.

    4 Nevertheless, I note that only three of the Government's ten attempts to provide notice were clearly ineffective; the other seven may very well have been effective.

    Here, the Government mailed the Show Cause Order by certified mail and by regular first-class mail to Registrant's addresses of record and last-known home addresses. The Government also emailed the Order to Show Cause to the email addresses which Registrant had provided to the Government. I find therefore that the Government's efforts were reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to apprise Registrant of the Order to Show Cause and to afford him an opportunity to present his objections.

    On November 4, 2016, the Government submitted a Request for Final Agency Action (hereinafter, RFAA) and an evidentiary record to support its proposed action. On March 21, 2017, it updated its RFAA representing that “because Registrant has not requested a hearing within 30 days of any receipt of the . . . [Order to Show Cause] and has not otherwise corresponded or communicated with DEA regarding the . . . [Order to Show Cause], including the filing of any written statement in lieu of a hearing, he has waived his right to a hearing.” Id. at 4.

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

    Findings of Fact Registrant's DEA Registrations

    Registrant currently holds DEA practitioner registrations BM9879024 and BM2782692, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in Schedules II through V. GX 13 and 14. These registrations do not expire until January 31, 2018. Id.

    DEA practitioner registration BM9879024 is assigned to Registrant at 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, OK 74128. GX 14, at 1. DEA practitioner registration BM2782692 is assigned to Registrant at “Accelerated Rehab & Pain Ctr, 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, NV 89145.” GX 13, at 1. However, from August 11, 2014 until December 15, 2014, the address associated with Registrant's BM2782692 registration was 11445 East 20th Street, Tulsa, OK 74128. Id. On December 15, 2014, Registrant changed the address associated with registration number BM2782692 to 241 N. Buffalo Drive, Bldg. 1, Las Vegas, NV 89145. Id.

    The Status of Registrant's State Licenses

    By Order dated June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked Registrant's license number 2965 to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Oklahoma. GX 7.

    Effective August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked Registrant's license number 705 to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Nevada. GX 8, at 4. Also, the status of Registrant's Nevada State Board of Pharmacy license number CS07559 is “revoked by other agency.” GX 9.5

    5 I take official notice that the online records of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners and the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine show Registrant does not currently possess a license issued by the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners or the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” United States Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979).

    Arrest of Registrant

    On April 17, 2013, Registrant was arrested as he attempted to pass through a McCarran International Airport Transportation Security Administration checkpoint with an unregistered firearm. GX 10, at 2-3. Law enforcement officers found a large quantity of pills in Registrant's carry-on bag along with the firearm. Id. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Arrest Report (hereinafter, Arrest Report), Registrant was “arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell/distribute schedule three, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell/distribute schedule four, possession of an unregistered firearm, and possession of hypodermic devices.” Id. at 7.

    According to the Arrest Report, Registrant possessed controlled substances with the intent to redistribute them to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed. Id. at 4-7. The Arrest Report contained a list of pills seized from Registrant at the time of his arrest. Id. at 4-5. Other than stating that the author of the Arrest Report, “Detective Shulke (phonetic), and Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent C. Johnson conducted an inventory of the pharmaceutical products located in Moon's (phonetic) possession,” the Arrest Report did not include factual support for the officers' conclusions that the seized pills were the controlled substances the Arrest Report stated them to be. Id. at 4. It did not, for example, state that the officers submitted the seized pills for lab testing or analyzed them using a resource that identified them based on size, shape, color, and imprint. Thus, I cannot place any weight on the statements in the Arrest Report that the seized pills were, in fact, controlled substances. The Government has produced no other evidence establishing that any of the pills seized from Registrant on the date he was arrested were controlled substances.

    Further, while the Arrest Report recounted Registrant “simply” stating that “some of his folks that he had previously treated were simply trying to destroy their medication, and . . . [Registrant] was willing to take possession of those medications again later to distribute to those that are indigent and in need,” the Arrest Report never stated that Registrant admitted possessing controlled substances not prescribed to himself or intended to redistribute controlled substances to individuals for whom they were not originally dispensed.6 Id. at 6.

    6 In this portion of the Arrest Report, Registrant did not admit taking possession of and redistributing controlled substances, only “medications.” Id. at 6. Also according to the Arrest Report, Registrant “saw nothing wrong with his possession of the controlled substances.” Id. at 3. However, this statement is imprecise; it could have concerned Registrant's possession of the hydrocodone tablets the Arrest Report stated were in a prescription bottle bearing Registrant's name. Id. at 4.

    Similarly, the record contains scant evidence regarding “the unreadableness/illegibility of some labels on the prescription bottles and the absence of any label on other prescription bottles.” GX 4, at 4. However, as stated above, the Arrest Report did not provide a basis for the officers' conclusions that the seized pills were controlled substances. Further, nothing else in the record established that the seized pills were controlled substances. Since the statutory sections cited in the Show Cause Order regarding these allegations only apply to controlled substances, and the record does not contain substantial evidence that the pills seized from Registrant at McCarran International Airport were, in fact, controlled substances, I cannot place any weight on the evidence in the record to support these alleged violations.” 7

    7 While substantial evidence regarding these allegations may exist due to the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners Order of Probation with Conditions concerning David Moon, D.O., dated December 10, 2014 and effective December 31, 2014, the Order of Probation with Conditions was not submitted as part of the RFAA.

    Investigations of Registrant

    After Registrant's arrest, the Government undertook a multi-faceted investigation of Registrant.

    According to the affidavit of a DI assigned to DEA's Tulsa Resident Office, on May 2, 2013, she and other Investigators executed an Administrative Inspection Warrant at Registrant's Oklahoma registered address. GX 12, at 1. At that time, she reviewed all pertinent documents and controlled substances records that Registrant was required to keep. Id. She found that Registrant failed to maintain a biennial inventory. Id.

    According to the Tulsa DI's affidavit, she issued administrative subpoenas to five entities for a complete sales history of all of Registrant's controlled substances purchases for the previous two years. Id. In comparing the information received from the five administrative subpoenas with the records Registrant provided during the inspection, she identified 32 invoices for controlled substances that Registrant failed to produce during the administrative inspection of May 2, 2013. Id. at 2.

    While the Government submitted evidence concerning other portions of its AIW investigation of Registrant, GX 11 and 12, the evidence lacked a sufficient foundation. The evidence consisted of a copy of the AIW, a portion of the affidavit of a DI who participated in the execution of the AIW, and “a complete and accurate copy of the DEA Computation Chart” prepared as part of the DI's accountability audit. Id. These materials did not, however, provide a sufficient foundation or sufficient detail concerning the procedure followed during the audit of Registrant. Thus, I cannot place any weight on this evidence.

    Further, no portion of these materials addressed the allegations in the AIW portion of the Show Cause Order that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients. GX 4, at 4. I examined the entire record for evidence concerning these two allegations. The Arrest Report stated that Registrant possessed a “large quantity” of “what appeared to be prescription medication” that “belonged to various family members and former patients.” GX 10, at 3. As I stated above, however, the Arrest Report did not contain factual support that the seized pills were controlled substances. Thus, I cannot place any weight on that evidence in the Arrest Report. For the same reason, the Arrest Report evidence cannot support the AIW-related allegations that Registrant accepted controlled substances from non-DEA registered sources and redistributed those illicitly obtained controlled substances to other patients. I found no other evidence in the record that supports these two AIW-related allegations.

    According to the affidavit of a Diversion Group Supervisor assigned to the DEA Las Vegas District Office, on October 30, 2014, she and other Investigators conducted a Scheduled Investigation at a SAV-ON Pharmacy in Las Vegas, Nevada. GX 15, at 1. At that time, the Investigators reviewed six randomly selected bundles of prescriptions and noticed prescriptions written by Registrant during a period when he did not have a DEA registration in the State of Nevada. Id. On November 3, 2014, the Investigators obtained copies of Registrant's controlled substance prescriptions filled at that SAV-ON Pharmacy in Las Vegas from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014. Id.

    I examined each of prescriptions the Government obtained from the Las Vegas SAV-ON Pharmacy. Based on my review of this evidence, from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014, Registrant issued at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions for drugs including oxycodone (23), morphine (17), adderall (six), tapentadol (six), methadone (two), and hydrocodone (one) on prescriptions showing Registrant's name as well as “Accelerated Rehabilitation & Pain Center” and its Las Vegas, Nevada contact information, Registrant's Nevada license number, and DEA registration number BM2782692.

    Discussion

    Under Section 304 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA), “[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be . . . revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration . . . revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Section 304 also provides that a registration may be revoked “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” Id. § 824(a)(4).

    In making the public interest determination, the CSA requires the consideration of the following factors:

    (1) The recommendation of the appropriate State licensing board or professional disciplinary authority.

    (2) The applicant's experience in dispensing, or conducting research with respect to controlled substances.

    (3) The applicant's conviction record under Federal or State laws relating to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances.

    (4) Compliance with applicable State, Federal, or local laws relating to controlled substances.

    (5) Such other conduct which may threaten the public health and safety.

    Id. § 823(f)(1)-(5).

    “[T]hese factors are . . . considered in the disjunctive.” Robert A. Leslie, M.D., 68 FR 15227, 15230 (2003). It is well settled that I “may rely on any one or a combination of factors and may give each factor the weight [I] deem[ ] appropriate in determining whether” to revoke a registration. Id.; see also MacKay v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 664 F.3d 808, 816 (10th Cir. 2011); Volkman v. DEA, 567 F.3d 215, 222 (6th Cir. 2009); Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005). Moreover, while I am required to consider each of the factors, I “need not make explicit findings as to each one.” MacKay, supra, 664 F.3d at 816 (quoting Volkman, 567 F.3d at 222); see also Hoxie, supra, 419 F.3d at 481.8

    8 “In short, this is not a contest in which score is kept; the Agency is not required to mechanically count up the factors and determine how many favor the Government and how many favor the registrant. Rather, it is an inquiry which focuses on protecting the public interest; what matters is the seriousness of the registrant's misconduct.” Jayam Krishna-Iyer, M.D., 74 FR 459, 462 (2009). Accordingly, as the Tenth Circuit has recognized, findings under a single factor can support the revocation of a registration. MacKay, supra, 664 F.3d at 821. Likewise, findings under a single factor can support the denial of an application.

    Under DEA's regulation, “[a]t any hearing for the revocation or suspension of a registration, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements for such revocation or suspension pursuant to . . . 21 U.S.C. [§ ] 824(a) . . . are satisfied.” 21 CFR 1301.44(e). The Government retains the burden of providing substantial evidence to support the proposed action even when the registrant does not request a hearing.

    In this case, I conclude that the record supports two independent grounds for revoking Registrant's registrations. First, Registrant does not possess authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of Oklahoma or Nevada, the States in which he is registered. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3). Second, Registrant violated multiple controlled substances-related regulatory requirements incumbent on registrants, thereby rendering his registrations “inconsistent with the public interest.” Id. § 824(a)(4).

    Registrant's Lack of State Authority

    DEA has long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the State in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a registration. Frederick Marsh Blanton, 43 FR 27616 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration”). See also Rezik A. Saqer, 81 FR 22122, 22126 (2016) (“DEA has interpreted the CSA in this manner for nearly 40 years.”) and James Hooper, 76 FR 71371 (2011) (collecting cases), pet for rev. denied, 481 Fed. Appx. 826 (4th Cir. 2012).

    As DEA has repeatedly held, this rule derives from multiple provisions of the CSA. First, in section 802(21), Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, Congress directed that the Attorney General “shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” Id. § 823(f). Third, Congress authorized revocation “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license . . . suspended [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” Id. § 824(a)(3).

    Here, the Government has provided substantial evidence establishing that Registrant no longer possesses authorization to dispense controlled substances in Oklahoma and Nevada, the States in which he is registered. As found above, on June 18, 2015, the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners revoked Registrant's osteopathic license, GX 7, and effective August 11, 2015, the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine revoked his osteopathic license. GX 8. See also GX 9. Accordingly, I find the Government has proved by substantial evidence that Registrant's authorizations to prescribe controlled substances in both Oklahoma and Nevada have been revoked and I take official notice that both States' revocations remain in place as of the date of this Decision and Order. I, therefore, find that Registrant is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in Oklahoma and Nevada, the States in which he is registered, and he is, therefore, not entitled to maintain his DEA registrations. Frederick Marsh Blanton, supra. Accordingly, I will order that his two registrations, BM9879024 and BM2782692, be revoked and that any pending application for the renewal or modification of these registrations be denied. 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), id. § 823(f).

    Acts Inconsistent With the Public Interest

    Pursuant to section 304(a)(4), the Attorney General is also authorized to revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has committed such acts as would render his registration under section 823 of this title inconsistent with the public interest as determined under such section.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(4).

    In this matter, while I have considered all of the factors, I find the Government's evidence as to factors two and four dispositive.9 I find that the record taken as a whole provides substantial evidence that Registrant violated provisions of the CSA requiring (1) the holding of a separate registration; (2) the taking of a biennial inventory; and (3) the maintenance of “complete and accurate” records.

    9 As to factor one, there is no evidence that either the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners or the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine made a recommendation to DEA; both, however, revoked Registrant's licenses to practice osteopathic medicine.

    As to factor three, although the record contains evidence concerning Registrant's arrest at McCarran International Airport, I acknowledge that there is no evidence that Registrant has been convicted of an offense under Federal, Oklahoma, or Nevada law “relating to the manufacture, distribution or dispensing of controlled substances.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f)(3). However, there could be any number of reasons why a person who has engaged in criminal misconduct may never have been convicted of an offense under this factor, let alone have been prosecuted for one. Dewey C. MacKay, 75 FR 49956, 49973 (2010), pet. for rev. denied, MacKay v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 664 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2011). The DEA has therefore held that “the absence of such a conviction is of considerably less consequence in the public interest inquiry” and is therefore not dispositive. Id.

    The Government did not allege in the Show Cause Order any misconduct exclusively with respect to factor five.

    Factors Two and Four—The Registrant's Experience in Dispensing Controlled Substances and Compliance With Applicable Laws Related to Controlled Substances The Dispensing Allegations

    The CSA requires a “separate registration . . . at each principal place of business or professional practice where the applicant . . . distributes . . . or dispenses controlled substances . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 822(e)(1). See also 21 CFR 1301.12(a); Clarification of Registration Requirements for Individual Practitioners, 71 FR 69478 (2006); Joe W. Morgan, 78 FR 61961 (2013). The CSA's definition of “dispense” explicitly includes the prescribing of a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. 802(10).

    Based on my review of the evidence submitted by the Government, the Registrant issued, from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014, at least 55 controlled substance prescriptions on prescriptions showing Registrant's name as well as “Accelerated Rehabilitation & Pain Center” and its Las Vegas, Nevada contact information, Registrant's Nevada license number, and DEA registration number BM2782692. Supra. Also during this time period, according to the evidence submitted by the Government, the address associated with DEA registration BM2782692 was in Oklahoma. Supra.

    The Order to Show Cause alleged that, by issuing these 55 prescriptions “in one state under a DEA registration issued for another state,” Registrant violated 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3). GX 4, at 5. These legal provisions, however, do not concern issuing a prescription “in one state under a DEA registration issued for another state.” Id. Instead, they require a separate registration at each principal place of business or professional practice where controlled substances are dispensed.

    Under 21 CFR 1306.05(a), controlled substance prescriptions are to “bear . . . the name, address and registration number of the practitioner,” among other things. Registrant's address on the 55 prescriptions the Government submitted is in Nevada. Thus, I conclude that Registrant maintained a principal place of business or professional practice in Nevada from August 11, 2014 through October 29, 2014 from which he issued at least 55 prescriptions for controlled substances. During this period, however, Registrant was not registered with the DEA in Nevada. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the separate registration requirements of 21 U.S.C. 822(e) and 21 CFR 1301.12(a) and (b)(3).

    The Inventory and Recordkeeping Allegations

    The CSA requires “every registrant . . . as soon . . . as such registrant first engages in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances, and every second year thereafter, [to] make a complete and accurate record of all stocks thereof on hand . . . .” 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(1). See also 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5) (“unlawful acts” include “to refuse or negligently fail to make, keep, or furnish any record, report, notification, declaration, order or order form, statement, invoice, or information required . . .”). As found above, during the execution of the AIW, Registrant could not produce a biennial inventory. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the CSA by failing to maintain a biennial inventory.

    The CSA also requires registrants to maintain, on a current basis, complete and accurate records of each controlled substance received or dispensed. See 21 U.S.C. 827(a)(3) and 21 CFR 1304.21(a). See also 21 U.S.C. 842(a)(5). According to the DI, during the administrative inspection of May 2, 2013, Registrant failed to produce 32 invoices for controlled substances he had purchased. Supra. Thus, I find that Registrant violated the CSA by failing to comply with its recordkeeping requirements concerning controlled substances.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 824(a) and 21 U.S.C. 823(f), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificates of Registration BM9879024 and BM2782692 issued to David D. Moon, D.O., be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that any pending application of David D. Moon, D.O., to renew or modify these registrations, as well as any other pending application, be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective May 30, 2017.

    Dated: April 17, 2017. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08452 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE National Institute of Justice [OMB Number 1121-NEW] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed New Information Collection Activity; Comment Request, Proposed Study Entitled “Tribal Youth Victimization Methods Study” AGENCY:

    National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 26, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Christine Crossland, National Institute of Justice, Office of Research & Evaluation, 810 Seventh Street NW., Washington, DC 20531 (overnight 20001) or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the National Institute of Justice, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Evaluate whether, and if so how, the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Survey development; Cognitive testing; Pilot testing of survey.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Tribal Youth Victimization Methods Study.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: The applicable component within the U.S. Department of Justice is the National Institute of Justice in the Office of Justice Programs.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: There has never been a national study of tribal youth regarding their victimization experiences that provides reliable, valid estimates of the scope of the problem. As a result, the incidence, prevalence, and nature of victimization experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native youth living in tribal communities is unknown. As a result, NIJ, in partnership with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and the Office for Victims of Crime has funded this methods study that involves developing and testing a survey instrument, testing different modes of administration that can effectively assess exposure to violence and victimization, and determining the feasibility of using these procedures in tribal communities and settings.

    The sample includes tribal youth 12 to 20 years of age. Cognitive testing will be conducted in four tribal settings with between 12-15 youth at each site. The pilot test involves the use of at least two but no more than three different modes of administration modes [e.g., face-to-face interviews, self-administered questionnaire in paper and pencil format, audio computer assisted self-administered interviews (required), computer assisted telephone interviews]. The target sample is 375 completed interviews from three tribal settings (one in Alaska and two in the lower 48.)

    Among the key outcomes that will be examined are the response and refusal rates, missing data, interview length, willingness to disclose sensitive information, respondent comfort, cost, ability to provide assistance to respondents, and the ease and adequacy of the human subjects' protocol.

    5. An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated range of burden for respondents participating in the cognitive interview is 90 minutes. Approximately 48 youth will be recruited to complete a cognitive interview. The estimated range of burden for respondents completing the survey in the pilot phase is expected to be 60 minutes for completion. The following factors were considered when creating the burden estimate: the estimated total number of sites (i.e., 4 cognitive sites and 3 pilot sites), respondents (i.e., 48 cognitive interviews and 375 pilot interviews for a total of 423 respondents), and parental and youth informed consent procedures for each phase.

    6. An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The estimated public burden associated with this collection is 447 hours. It is estimated that each of the cognitive interviews will take 90 minutes to complete (48 respondents × 1.5 hour = 72 hours). Lastly, it is estimated that each pilot survey will take 60 minutes to complete (375 respondents × 1 hour = 375 hours). We estimate a 12-month data collection period, with all cognitive and pilot testing completed in one year.

    If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE., 3E.405A, Washington, DC 20530.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. Department of Justice.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08520 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; On the Road to Retirement Surveys ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) sponsored information collection request (ICR) proposal titled, “On the Road to Retirement Surveys,” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval for use in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. Public comments on the ICR are invited.

    DATES:

    The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free of charge from the RegInfo.gov Web site at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201412-1210-007 (this link will only become active on the day following publication of this notice) or by contacting Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at [email protected].

    Submit comments about this request by mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for DOL-EBSA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503; by Fax: 202-395-5806 (this is not a toll-free number); or by email: [email protected]. Commenters are encouraged, but not required, to send a courtesy copy of any comments by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor—OASAM, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Attn: Departmental Information Compliance Management Program, Room N1301, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; or by email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This ICR seeks PRA authority for the “On the Road to Retirement Surveys” information collection. More specifically, the EBSA seeks to undertake a long-term research study that will track U.S. households over several years in order to collect data and answer important research questions on how retirement planning strategies and decisions evolve over time. This collection will gather data about how people make planning and financial decisions before and during retirement, especially with regard to the information that they receive and how they respond to it. The data collection effort is designed to overcome the limitations seen in existing data collection activities. Gaining insight into Americans' decision-making processes and experiences will provide policy-makers and the research community with valuable information that can be used to guide future policy and research. This ICR seeks approval for pre-test surveys, a screening survey, an initial participant survey, an advice interaction survey, and an annual participant survey. Household reports on behavior and outcomes will be combined with survey responses on planning methods, strategies and financial information received to perform a cross-sectional analysis, conditional on other respondent attributes. The EBSA intends to use data drawn from multiple waves of various surveys to analyze how behavior evolves over time. Employee Retirement Income Security Act section 513(a) authorizes this information collection. See 29 U.S.C. 1143(a).

    This proposed information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if the collection of information does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6. For additional information, see the related notice published in the Federal Register on February 29, 2016 (81 FR 10280).

    Interested parties are encouraged to send comments to the OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section within thirty (30) days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments should mention OMB ICR Reference Number 201412-1210-007. The OMB is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • 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;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • 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.

    Agency: DOL-EBSA.

    Title of Collection: On the Road to Retirement Surveys.

    OMB ICR Reference Number: 201412-1210-007.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Respondents: 10,390.

    Total Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 19,607.

    Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 10,529 hours.

    Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0.

    Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D).

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Michel Smyth, Departmental Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08486 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; 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 Materials Research—Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, California State University Los Angeles SV (#1203).

    Date and Time:

    May 1, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. May 2, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    Place: California State University—Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032.

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Dr. Jose Caro, Program Director, Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, PREM., Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone (703) 292-4914.

    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.

    Agenda Monday, May 1, 2017; 8 a.m.-6 p.m. 8:00 a.m.-8:15 a.m. Continental Breakfast (Closed) 8:15 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Executive Session for Site Visit Team Only (Closed) 8:30 a.m.-8:55 a.m. Welcome and Overview by Administration 8:55 a.m.-9:30 a.m. PI's Overview of PREM 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Q&A for PI's and Administrator's Overviews 9:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Partner Institutions Interactions Q&A 10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Research Presentations (CSULA)/Q&A 12:00 p.m.-12:15 p.m. Q&A for Science Presentations 12:15 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Lunch with students and post docs (no faculty). 1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Facilities Overview and Visit 2:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Visiting Team with University Management (Closed) 2:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Poster Session with refreshments 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Executive session—SV Team only (Closed) 5:00 p.m.-5:45 p.m. SV Team meets with PREM Management Team 5:45 p.m. Adjourn 6:00 p.m.  Dinner Tuesday, May 2, 2017; 8 a.m.-12 p.m. 8:00 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast. Golden Eagle Ballroom 1 8:30 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Education and Outreach Activities 9:30 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Q&A for Educational and Outreach Presentations 10:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m. Executive Sessions for Site Visit Team Only (Closed) 11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. NFS Debriefing with PREM 12:00 p.m. End of Site Visit 12:00 p.m. Working Lunch, Optional

    Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with review of the Center.

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08478 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:

    Name and Committee Code: Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering (#25104).

    Date and Time:

    May 15, 2017; 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; May 16, 2017; 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Place: National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155.01, Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Roxanne Nikolaus, Program Manager, National Science Foundation, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Stafford II, Suite 1155.01, Arlington, Virginia 22230; 703-292-8710.

    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice, recommendations and counsel on major goals and policies pertaining to international programs and activities.

    Agenda Monday, May 15, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Office of International Science and Engineering Updates, including Countries and Regions and Programs and Analysis Clusters Community Engagement—Follow-up on the November 2016 Advisory Committee-International Science and Engineering discussion of regional workshops Student Programs—Discussion of NSF international programs for U.S. undergraduate and graduate students OISE Strategic Planning—Discussion of overall strategy for international science collaboration (Closed Session) Tuesday, May 16, 2017; 8:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. Meet with NSF leadership International Vignettes—Discussion of examples of OISE investments

    Reason for Closing: Session having to do with overall strategy for international science collaboration will include discussion of potential proposed agency actions and may properly be closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (9), (B) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08480 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review Panel for Materials Research; 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 Materials Research—Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, University of Puerto Rico at Humacao SV (#1203).

    Date and Time:

    May 11, 2017; 7:45 a.m.-6:00 p.m. May 12, 2017; 7:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    Place: University of Puerto Rico at Humacao, Avenida José E. Aguiar Aramburu, Humacao Puerto Rico 00792.

    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.

    Contact Person: Dr. Jose Caro, Program Director, Partnership for Research and Education in Materials, PREM., Division of Materials Research, Room 1065, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230; Telephone (703) 292-4914.

    Purpose of Meeting: NSF site visit to provide advice and recommendations concerning further NSF support for the Center.

    Agenda Monday, May 1, 2017; 7:45 a.m.-6 p.m. 7:45 a.m.-8:15 a.m. Continental Breakfast Executive Session for Site Visit Team (Closed) 8:15 a.m.-8:30 a.m. Break 8:30 a.m.-8:45 a.m. Welcome and Overview by Administration 8:45 a.m.-9:30 a.m. PI's Overview of PREM 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Q&A for PI's and Administrator's Overviews 9:45 a.m.-10:15 a.m. Partner Institutions Interactions Q&A 10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m. Break 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Research Presentations/Q&A 12:00 p.m.-12:15 p.m. Q&A for Science Presentations 12:15 p.m.-1:15 p.m. Lunch with students and post docs (no faculty). 1:15 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Facilities Overview and Visit 2:15 p.m.-2:45 p.m. Visiting Team with University Management (Closed) 2:45 p.m.-4:00 p.m. Poster Session with refreshments 4:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. Executive session—SV Team only (Closed) 5:00 p.m.-5:45 p.m. SV Team meets with PREM Management Team 6:00 p.m. Adjourn Tuesday, May 2, 2017; 7:30 a.m.-12 p.m. 7:30 a.m.-8:00 a.m. Continental Breakfast 8:00 a.m.-9:30 a.m. Education and Outreach Activities 9:30 a.m.-9:45 a.m. Q&A for Educational and Outreach Presentations 9:45 a.m.-10:00 a.m. Break 10:00 a.m.-11:45 a.m. Executive Sessions for Site Visit Team Only (Closed) 11:45 a.m.-12:00 p.m. NFS Debriefing with PREM PI 12:00 p.m. End of Site Visit 12:00 p.m. Working Lunch for Site Visit Team

    Reason for Late Notice: Due to unforeseen scheduling complications and the necessity to proceed with review of the Center.

    Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed during closed portions of the site visit will include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08479 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Request for Recommendations for Membership on Directorate and Office Advisory Committees ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests recommendations for membership on its scientific and technical Federal advisory committees. Recommendations should consist of the name of the submitting individual, the organization or the affiliation providing the member nomination, the name of the recommended individual, the recommended individual's curriculum vita, an expression of the individual's interest in serving, and the following recommended individual's contact information: employment address, telephone number, FAX number, and email address. Self-recommendations are accepted. If you would like to make a membership recommendation for any of the NSF scientific and technical Federal advisory committees, please send your recommendation to the appropriate committee contact person listed in the chart below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The mailing address for the National Science Foundation is 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

    Web links to individual committee information may be found on the NSF Web site: NSF Advisory Committees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Each Directorate and Office has an external advisory committee that typically meets twice a year to review and provide advice on program management; discuss current issues; and review and provide advice on the impact of policies, programs, and activities in the disciplines and fields encompassed by the Directorate or Office. In addition to Directorate and Office advisory committees, NSF has several committees that provide advice and recommendations on specific topics including: astronomy and astrophysics; environmental research and education; equal opportunities in science and engineering; cyberinfrastructure; international science and engineering; and business and operations.

    A primary consideration when formulating committee membership is recognized knowledge, expertise, or demonstrated ability.1 Other factors that may be considered are balance among diverse institutions, regions, and groups underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Committee members serve for varying term lengths, depending on the nature of the individual committee. Although we welcome the recommendations we receive, we regret that NSF will not be able to acknowledge or respond positively to each person who contacts NSF or has been recommended. NSF intends to publish a similar notice to this on an annual basis. NSF will keep recommendations active for 12 months from the date of receipt.

    1 Federally registered lobbyists are not eligible for appointment to these Federal advisory committees.

    The chart below is a listing of the committees seeking recommendations for membership. Recommendations should be sent to the contact person identified below. The chart contains web addresses where additional information about individual committees is available.

    Advisory committee Contact person Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences https://www.nsf.gov/bio/advisory.jsp Brent Miller, Directorate for Biological Sciences; phone: (703) 292-8400; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-2988. Advisory Committee for Computer and Information Science and Engineering https://www.nsf.gov/cise/advisory.jsp Gera Jochum, Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering; phone: (703) 292-8900; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9074. Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure https://www.nsf.gov/cise/aci/advisory.jsp Brenda Williams, Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure; phone: (703) 292-4554; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9060. Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources https://www.nsf.gov/ehr/advisory.jsp Keaven Stevenson, Directorate for Education and Human Resources; phone: (703) 292-8600; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9179. Advisory Committee for Engineering https://www.nsf.gov/eng/advisory.jsp Cecile Gonzalez, Directorate for Engineering; phone: (703) 292-8300; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9013. Advisory Committee for Geosciences https://www.nsf.gov/geo/advisory.jsp Melissa Lane, Directorate for Geosciences: phone: (703) 292-8500; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9042. Advisory Committee for International Science and Engineering https://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/advisory.jsp Cassandra Dudka, Office of International Science and Engineering, phone: (703) 292-7250; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9067. Advisory Committee for Mathematical and Physical Sciences https://www.nsf.gov/mps/advisory.jsp John Gillaspy, Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences; phone: (703) 292-7173; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9151. Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences https://www.nsf.gov/sbe/advisory.jsp Deborah Olster, Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences; phone: (703) 292-8700; E-Mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9083. Advisory Committee for Polar Programs https://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/advisory.jsp Andrew Backe, Office of Polar Programs; phone: (703) 292-2454; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9081. Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/ceose/ Bernice Anderson, Office of Integrative Activities; phone: (703) 292-8040; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9040. Advisory Committee for Business and Operations https://www.nsf.gov/oirm/bocomm/ Jeffrey Rich, Office of Information and Resource Management; phone: (703) 292-8100; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9084. Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education https://www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=ERE Stephen Meacham, Office of Integrative Activities; phone: (703) 292-8040; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9040. Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee https://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac.jsp Elizabeth Pentecost, Division of Astronomical Sciences; phone: (703) 292-4907; e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (703) 292-9034. Dated: April 24, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08481 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0174] Information Collection: DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB); request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection to OMB for review. The information collections are entitled, “DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; and DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing.”

    DATES:

    Submit comments May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments directly to the OMB reviewer at: Aaron Szabo, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0057, 3150-0003, 3150-0004, 3150-0058), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503; telephone: 202-395-3621, email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0174 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0174. A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing Docket ID NRC-2016-0174.

    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] A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by accessing the following ADAMS Accession No. ML17009A231. Guidance documents are available for the Forms in ADAMS as follows: NUREG/BR-0006, Revision 7, Accession No. ML111740924, and NUREG/BR-0007 Accession No. ML090120288. The supporting statements for each DOE/NRC Form and the forms themselves are available in ADAMS as follows: DOE/NRC Form 740M, “Concise Note” Accession Nos. ML17009A233 and ML16252A189; DOE/NRC Form 741, “Nuclear Material Transaction Report” Accession Nos. ML17009A234 and ML16252A191; DOE/NRC Form 742, “Material Balance Report” Accession numbers ML17009A235 and ML16252A192; and DOE/NRC Form 742C, “Physical Inventory Listing” Accession Nos. ML17009A236 and ML16252A193.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    NRC's Clearance Officer: A copy of the collection of information and related instructions may be obtained without charge by contacting the NRC's Clearance Officer, David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email: [email protected]

    B. Submitting Comments

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at http://www.regulations.gov and entered into ADAMS. Comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Background

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a revision of a collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    The NRC published a Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period on this information collection on October 28, 2016 (81 FR 75167).

    1. The title of the information collection: DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing.

    2. OMB approval numbers:

    DOE/NRC Form 740M: 3150-0057.

    DOE/NRC Form 741: 3150-0003.

    DOE/NRC Form 742: 3150-0004.

    DOE/NRC Form 742C: 3150-0058.

    3. Type of submission: Revision.

    4. The form number if applicable: DOE/NRC Forms 740M, 741, 742, and 742C.

    5. How often the collection is required or requested: DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Reports will be collected whenever nuclear material is shipped or received into the Material Balance Area; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report will be collected on an annual basis; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing will be collected on an annual basis; DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note Forms are used when needed.

    6. Who will be required or asked to respond: Persons licensed to possess specified quantities of nuclear material and entities subject to the U.S. IAEA Caribbean Territories Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/366) are required to respond as follows:

    Any licensee who ships, receives, or otherwise undergoes an inventory change of nuclear material is required to submit a DOE/NRC Form 741 to document the change. Additional information regarding these transactions shall be submitted through Form 740M, with Safeguards Information identified and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21, “Requirements for the Protection of Safeguards Information.”

    Any licensee who had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location, nuclear material in a quantity totaling one gram or more shall complete DOE/NRC Form 742. In addition, each licensee, Federal or State, who is authorized to possess, at any one time or location, one kilogram of foreign obligated source material, is required to file with the NRC an annual statement of source material inventory which is foreign obligated.

    Any licensee, who had possessed in the previous reporting period, at any one time and location, special nuclear material in a quantity totaling one gram or more shall complete DOE/NRC Form 742C.

    7. The estimated number of annual responses:

    DOE/NRC Form 740M: 175.

    DOE/NRC Form 741: 10,000.

    DOE/NRC Form 742: 385.

    DOE/NRC Form 742C: 385.

    8. The estimated number of annual respondents:

    DOE/NRC Form 740M: 40.

    DOE/NRC Form 741: 350.

    DOE/NRC Form 742: 385.

    DOE/NRC Form 742C: 385.

    9. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to comply with the information collection requirement or request:

    DOE/NRC Form 740M: 131.

    DOE/NRC Form 741: 12,500.

    DOE/NRC Form 742: 1,310.

    DOE/NRC Form 742C: 1,490.

    10. Abstract: Persons licensed to possess specified quantities of nuclear material currently report inventory and transaction of material to the Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System via the DOE/NRC Forms: DOE/NRC Form 740M, Concise Note; DOE/NRC Form 741, Nuclear Material Transaction Report; DOE/NRC Form 742, Material Balance Report; DOE/NRC Form 742C, Physical Inventory Listing. This collection is being renewed to include approximately 25 entities subject to the U.S. IAEA Caribbean Territories Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/366). 10 CFR part 75 requires licensees to provide reports of nuclear material inventory and flow for entities under the U.S. IAEA Caribbean Territories Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/366), permit inspections by IAEA inspectors, give immediate notice to the NRC in specified situations involving the possibility of loss of nuclear material, and give notice for imports and exports of specified amounts of nuclear material. These licensees will also follow written material accounting and control procedures, although actual reporting of transfer and material balance records to the IAEA will be done through the U.S. State system (Nuclear Materials Management and Safeguards System, collected under OMB clearance numbers 3150-0003, 3150-0004, 3150-0057, and 3150-0058.) The NRC needs this information to implement its international obligations under the U.S.-IAEA Caribbean Territories Safeguards Agreement (INFCIRC/366).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08533 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    POSTAL SERVICE Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting Dates and Times:

    Tuesday, May 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.; and Wednesday, May 10, at 8:00 a.m.

    Place:

    Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

    Status:

    Tuesday, May 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.—Closed; Wednesday, May 10, at 8:00 a.m.—Open.

    Matters to be Considered Tuesday, May 9, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. (Closed)

    1. Financial Matters.

    2. Strategic Issues.

    3. Governors' Executive Session—Discussion of prior agenda items and Board governance.

    Wednesday, May 10, 2017, at 8:00 a.m. (Open)

    1. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO and Chairman of the Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board.

    2. Approval of Minutes of Previous Meetings.

    3. Committee Reports.

    4. Quarterly Report on Financial Performance.

    5. Quarterly Service Performance Report.

    6. Tentative Agenda for the June 20 Meeting.

    Contact Person for More Information:

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone: (202) 268-4800.

    Julie S. Moore, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08676 Filed 4-25-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    Summary: In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.

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

    Title and purpose of information collection: Representative Payee Monitoring; OMB 3220-0151. Under Section 12 of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the RRB may pay annuity benefits to a representative payee when an employee, spouse, or survivor annuitant is incompetent or a minor. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to an annuitant or a representative payee would best serve the annuitant's best interest. The accountability requirements authorizing the RRB to conduct periodic monitoring of representative payees, including a written accounting of benefit payments received, are prescribed in 20 CFR 266.7. The RRB utilizes the following forms to conduct its representative payee monitoring program.

    Form G-99a, Representative Payee Report, is used to obtain information needed to determine whether the benefit payments certified to the representative payee have been used for the annuitant's current maintenance and personal needs and whether the representative payee continues to be concerned with the annuitant's welfare. RRB Form G-99c, Representative Payee Evaluation Report, is used to obtain more detailed information from a representative payee who fails to complete and return Form G-99a or in situations when the returned Form G-99a indicates the possible misuse of funds by the representative payee. Form G-99c contains specific questions concerning the representative payee's performance and is used by the RRB to determine whether or not the representative payee should continue in that capacity. The RRB proposes no changes to Forms G-99a and G-99c.

    In response to the RRB's Office of Inspector General's recommendation to strengthen the controls of the agency's representative payee monitoring program, the RRB proposes new Form G-106, Statement of Care and Responsibility to Annuitant. In cases where the representative payee does not have custody of the annuitant, Form G-106 will be used to solicit information about the representative payee's performance and the annuitant's well-being from the custodian of the annuitant. The proposed form contains specific questions concerning the representative payee's performance, and will be used by the RRB to determine whether or not the representative payee should continue in that capacity.

    Completion of the forms in this collection is required to retain benefits.

    Estimate of Annual Respondent Burden Form number Annual
  • responses
  • Time
  • (minutes)
  • Burden
  • (hours)
  • G-99a (legal and all other, excepting parent for child) 5,400 18 1,620 G-99c (Parts I and II) 300 24 120 G-99c (Parts I, II, and III) 120 31 62 G-106 500 10 83 Total 6,320 1,885

    Additional Information or Comments: To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, contact 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 emailed to [email protected]. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.

    Brian D. Foster, Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08477 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7905-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80501; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2016-176] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the EtherIndex Ether Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 April 21, 2017.

    On December 30, 2016, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the EtherIndex Ether Trust (“Trust”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on January 23, 2017.3 On February 23, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79792 (Jan. 13, 2017), 82 FR 7891 (Jan. 23, 2017) (“Notice”).

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80094 (Feb. 23, 2017), 82 FR 12268 (Mar. 1, 2017). The Commission designated April 23, 2017, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.

    This order institutes proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    I. Summary of the Proposal 7

    7 The Commission notes that additional information regarding the Trust and the Shares can be found in the Notice, see supra note 3, and the Registration Statement, which was filed by the Trust on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933 on July 15, 2016, and amended on November 28, 2016. This additional information addresses the Trust's investment objectives, risks, creation and redemption procedures, fees, portfolio holdings disclosure policies, calculation of the net asset value (“NAV”), distributions, and taxes, as well as additional background information about ether and the Ethereum Network, including information relating to, among other things, Ethereum Network operations, ether transfers and transactions, cryptographic security used in the Ethereum Network, ether mining and creation of new ether, the supply of ether, and modifications to the ether protocol.

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, which governs the listing and trading of Commodity-Based Trust Shares on the Exchange.8 Each Share would represent a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the Trust's net assets. According to the Exchange, the Trust's assets primarily would consist of ether,9 which would be held in the custody of, and secured by, the Trust's ether custodian, Coinbase (“Custodian”).10 The Trust would create and redeem the Shares only in “Baskets” of 10,000 Shares, and orders to create and redeem Baskets may be placed only by Authorized Participants. The creation and redemption transactions would be conducted for cash or, at the discretion of the sponsor of the Trust, EtherIndex LLC, “in-kind” for ether, and the NAV of the Baskets being created or redeemed would be based on the aggregate number of ether represented by the Shares included in the Baskets as of the day the order to create or redeem was properly received.

    8See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 (permitting the listing and trading of “Commodity-Based Trust Shares,” defined as a security “(a) that is issued by a trust that holds a specified commodity deposited with the Trust; (b) that is issued by such Trust in a specified aggregate minimum number in return for a deposit of a quantity of the underlying commodity; and (c) that, when aggregated in the same specified minimum number, may be redeemed at a holder's request by such Trust which will deliver to the redeeming holder the quantity of the underlying commodity”).

    9 The Exchange represents that ether is a digital asset similar to bitcoin and is not issued by any government, bank, or central organization, but rather is issued by, and is transmitted through, the decentralized, open-source protocol of the peer-to-peer Ethereum Network. The Exchange represents that unlike bitcoin, ether was not designed to function purely as a store of value. Instead, ether was meant to pay for specific actions on the Ethereum Network. However, according to the Exchange, ether's market is currently supported by many of the same online exchanges and the same infrastructure that has developed around the bitcoin network.

    10 According to the Exchange, the private keys that control the Trust's ether would be secured by the Custodian and stored completely offline in a “cold storage” system. The Exchange represents that the Custodian's cold storage system is founded on the principles of (i) building defense-in-depth against external threats, (ii) protecting against human error, and (iii) guarding against misuse of insider access. The Custodian's cold storage mechanism involves generating private keys on an “air-gapped” computer (i.e., a computer that has never been connected to the Internet), then splitting these keys into segments using a special algorithm to ensure that no one individual knows how the key was fragmented, and finally distributing these fragments geographically so that no one entity can access the cold storage without the other individuals contributing their fragment of the key. According to the Exchange, the Custodian maintains insurance against theft and electronic compromise in an amount that exceeds the average value of ether that it holds online at any one time. The Exchange also represents that the Trust may hold cash for short periods in connection with the creation and redemption process and to pay certain fees, expenses, and liabilities.

    The investment objective of the Trust would be for the Shares to track the price of ether as measured by the price of ether in U.S. dollars reported by the Global Digital Asset Exchange (“GDAX”) as of 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“GDAX Price”). The NAV of the Trust would be calculated each business day based on the GDAX Price. The Trust's Web site would provide an intra-day indicative value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third-party financial data provider during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (i.e., 9:30 a.m. ET to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time). The IIV would be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's ether holdings during the trading day.

    II. Proceedings to Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSEArca-2016-176 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 11 to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,12 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” and “to protect investors and the public interest.” 13

    12Id.

    13 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    III. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.14

    14 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments—is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by May 18, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 1, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, which are set forth in the Notice.15 In addition to any other comments commenters may wish to submit about the proposed rule change, the Commission invites commenters' views concerning any features that distinguish the Exchange's proposal from other proposals to list and trade shares of commodity-trust ETPs.

    15See supra note 3.

    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-NYSEArca-2016-176 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 Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2016-176. 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 these filings 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-NYSEArca-2016-176 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 1, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.16

    16 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08461 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80502; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-06] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1, and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 April 21, 2017.

    On January 25, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Bitcoin Investment Trust under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 9, 2017.3

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79955 (Feb. 3, 2017), 82 FR 10086 (Feb. 9, 2017) (“Notice”).

    On March 22, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,4 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received four comment letters on the proposed rule change.6 On April 6, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80297 (Mar. 22, 2017), 82 FR 15408 (Mar. 28, 2017). The Commission designated May 10, 2017, as the date by which it should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.

    6See Letters from Joseph Stephen White (Feb. 5, 2017); Anonymous (Feb. 8, 2017) (purportedly from Jeffrey Wilcke, Ethereum Foundation); Mark T. Williams, Finance Professor, Boston University (Mar. 13, 2017); Clark J. Haley (Apr. 17, 2017). All comments on the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's Web site at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-06/nysearca201706.htm.

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1,7 from interested persons and is instituting proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 8 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    7 The Exchange's description of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is described in Sections I and II below, which Sections have been prepared by the Exchange. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange, among other things (a) added content relating to the Trust's security arrangements (see Section II.A.1, infra (discussion in subheading “Bitcoin Security and Storage”)); (b) added content relating to changes in transactions fees and trading volumes on China-based bitcoin exchanges (see Section II.A.1, infra (discussion in subheading “Bitcoin Exchanges”)); (c) revised information and statistics relating to the trading volumes on, and market shares of, the largest U.S. dollar denominated bitcoin exchanges (see Section II.A.1, infra (table entitled “Eight Largest U.S. Dollar-Denominated Bitcoin Exchanges by Trade Volume” under subheading “Bitcoin Exchanges”)); (d) deleted content relating to a platform license agreement between the Index Provider and Genesis (see Section II.A.1, infra (discussion in subheading “Bitcoin Index Price”)); and (e) clarified and added content relating to the Trust's creation and redemption processes, particularly the Conversion Procedures (see Section II.A.1, infra (discussion in subheading “Creation and Redemption of Shares”)). Amendment No. 1, which superseded and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety, is available on the Commission's Web site at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-06/nysearca201706-1689847-149663.pdf.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201: Bitcoin Investment Trust (“Trust”). The proposed rule 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 Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, the Exchange may propose to list and/or trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) “Commodity-Based Trust Shares.” 9 The Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the Trust pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.10

    9 Commodity-Based Trust Shares are securities issued by a trust that represent investors' discrete identifiable and undivided beneficial ownership interest in the commodities deposited into the Trust.

    10 On March 24, 2017, the Trust filed Amendment No. 1 to its registration statement (“Registration Statement”) on Form S-1 under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (File No. 333-215627). The descriptions of the Trust, the Shares and bitcoin contained herein are based, in part, on the Registration Statement. This Amendment No. 1 to SR-NYSEArca-2017-06 replaces SR-NYSEArca-2017-06 as originally filed and supersedes such filing in its entirety. On March 4, 2016, the Trust submitted to the Commission an amended Form D as a business trust. Shares of the Trust have been quoted on OTC Market's OTCQX Best Marketplace under the symbol “GBTC” since March 26, 2015. On November 11, 2016, the Trust also published a quarterly report for GBTC for the period ended September 30, 2016, which can be found on OTC Market's Web site: http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/GBTC/filings. The Shares will be of the same class and will have the same rights as shares of GBTC. Effective October 28, 2014, the Trust suspended its redemption program for shares of GBTC, in which shareholders were permitted to request the redemption of their shares through Genesis Global Trading, Inc. (formerly known as SecondMarket, Inc.), an affiliate of the Sponsor and the Trust (“Genesis”). According to the Sponsor, freely tradeable shares of GBTC will remain unregistered freely tradeable Shares on the date of the listing of the Shares unless, if authorized by the Trust, holders of GBTC sell the shares in the initial public offering. Restricted shares of GBTC will remain subject to private placement restrictions and the holders of such restricted shares may either (i) continue to hold those shares subject to those restrictions or (ii) if authorized by the Trust, sell the restricted shares in the initial public offering.

    The sponsor of the Trust is Grayscale Investments, LLC (“Sponsor”), a Delaware limited liability company. The Sponsor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, Inc. (“Digital Currency Group”). The trustee for the Trust is Delaware Trust Company (“Trustee”). The Bank of New York Mellon will be the Trust's transfer agent (in such capacity, “Transfer Agent”) and the administrator of the Trust (in such capacity, “Administrator”). Xapo Inc. is the custodian for the Trust (“Custodian”).11 ALPS Portfolio Solutions Distributor, Inc. will be the marketing agent for the Trust (“Marketing Agent”).

    11 According to the Registration Statement, Digital Currency Group owns a minority interest in the Custodian that represents less than 1.0% of the Custodian's equity.

    The Trust is a Delaware statutory trust, organized on September 13, 2013, that operates pursuant to a trust agreement between the Sponsor and the Trustee. The Trust has no fixed termination date.

    According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a proportional interest, based on the total number of Shares outstanding, in the bitcoins held by the Trust, less the Trust's liabilities, which include accrued but unpaid fees and expenses. The Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoins held on the Trust's behalf by the Custodian. The Trust has not had a cash balance at any time since inception. When selling bitcoins to pay expenses, the Sponsor will endeavor to sell the exact number of bitcoins needed to pay expenses in order to minimize the Trust's holdings of assets other than bitcoin. As a consequence, the Trust expects that it will not record any cash flow from its operations and that its cash balance will be zero at the end of each reporting period.

    The activities of the Trust will be limited to (i) issuing “Baskets” (as defined below) in exchange for bitcoins deposited by the “Authorized Participants” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Providers” (as defined below), as applicable, with the Custodian as consideration, (ii) transferring actual bitcoins as necessary to cover the Sponsor's management fee and selling bitcoins as necessary to pay certain other fees that are not contractually assumed by the Sponsor, (iii) transferring actual bitcoins in exchange for Baskets surrendered for redemption by the Authorized Participants, (iv) causing the Sponsor to sell bitcoins on the termination of the Trust and (v) engaging in all administrative and custodial procedures necessary to accomplish such activities in accordance with the provisions of applicable agreements. The Trust is not actively managed. It will not engage in any activities designed to obtain a profit from, or to ameliorate losses caused by, changes in the market price of bitcoins.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust is neither an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, (“1940 Act”) 12 nor a commodity pool for purposes of the Commodity Exchange Act,13 and neither the Sponsor nor the Trustee is subject to regulation as a commodity pool operator or a commodity trading adviser in connection with the Shares.

    12 15 U.S.C. 80a-1.

    13 17 U.S.C. 1.

    Investment Objective

    According to the Registration Statement, and as further described below, the investment objective of the Trust will be for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the TradeBlock XBX Index (“Index”),14 less the Trust's liabilities and expenses.

    14 The Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of bitcoin based on the volume-weighted price at trading venues selected by TradeBlock, Inc. (“Index Provider”). According to the Registration Statement, Digital Currency Group, Inc. owns approximately 2.4% of the Index Provider's voting equity and warrants representing approximately 1.4% of the Index Provider's voting equity. See “Bitcoin Index Price” below.

    The Shares are designed to provide investors with a cost-effective and convenient way to invest in bitcoin. A substantial direct investment in bitcoins may require expensive and sometimes complicated arrangements in connection with the acquisition, security and safekeeping of the bitcoins and may involve the payment of substantial fees to acquire such bitcoins from third-party facilitators through cash payments of U.S. dollars. Although the Shares will not be the exact equivalent of a direct investment in bitcoins, they will provide investors with an alternative that constitutes a relatively cost-effective way to participate in bitcoin markets through the securities market.

    Overview of the Bitcoin Industry and Market

    The following is a brief introduction to the bitcoin industry and the bitcoin market based on information provided in the Registration Statement.

    The Bitcoin Network

    A bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency that is issued by, and transmitted through, an open-source digital protocol platform using cryptographic security that is known as the “Bitcoin Network.” The Bitcoin Network is an online, peer-to-peer user network that hosts a public transaction ledger, known as the “Blockchain,” and the source code that comprises the basis for the cryptography and digital protocols governing the Bitcoin Network. No single entity owns or operates the Bitcoin Network, the infrastructure of which is collectively maintained by a decentralized user base. Bitcoins can be used to pay for goods and services or can be converted to fiat currencies, such as the U.S. dollar, at rates determined on electronic marketplaces where exchange participants may first use fiat currency to trade, buy and sell bitcoins based on bid-ask trading (“Bitcoin Exchanges”) or in individual end-user-to-end-user transactions under a barter system.

    The Blockchain is comprised of a digital file, downloaded and stored, in whole or in part, on all bitcoin users' software programs. The file includes all “blocks” that have been solved by miners and is updated to include new blocks as they are solved. As each newly solved block refers back to and “connects” with the immediately prior solved block, the addition of a new block adds to the Blockchain in a manner similar to a new link being added to a chain. Because each new block records outstanding bitcoin transactions, and outstanding transactions are settled and validated through such recording, the Blockchain represents a complete, transparent and unbroken history of all transactions on the Bitcoin Network.

    Bitcoins are “stored” or reflected on the Blockchain. The Blockchain records the transaction history of all bitcoins in existence and, through the transparent reporting of transactions, allows the Bitcoin Network to verify the association of each bitcoin with the digital wallet that owns them. The Bitcoin Network and bitcoin software programs can interpret the Blockchain to determine the exact bitcoin balance of any digital wallet listed in the Blockchain as having taken part in a transaction on the Bitcoin Network.

    In order to own, transfer or use bitcoins, a person generally must have internet access to connect to the Bitcoin Network. Bitcoin transactions between parties occur rapidly (typically between a few seconds and a few minutes) and may be made directly between end-users without the need for a third-party intermediary, although there are entities that provide third-party intermediary services. To prevent the possibility of double-spending a single bitcoin, each transaction is recorded, time stamped and publicly displayed in a block in the publicly available Blockchain. Thus, the Bitcoin Network provides confirmation against double-spending by memorializing every transaction in the Blockchain, which is publicly accessible and downloaded in part or in whole by all users' Bitcoin Network software programs as described above.

    The Bitcoin Network is decentralized and does not rely on either governmental authorities or financial institutions to create, transmit or determine the value of bitcoins. Rather, bitcoins are created and allocated by the Bitcoin Network protocol through a “mining” process subject to a strict, well-known issuance schedule. The value of bitcoins is determined by the supply of and demand for bitcoins in the bitcoin exchange market (and in private end-user-to-end-user transactions), as well as the number of merchants that accept them. As bitcoin transactions can be broadcast to the Bitcoin Network by any user's bitcoin software and bitcoins can be transferred without the involvement of intermediaries or third parties, there are little or no transaction costs in direct peer-to-peer transactions on the Bitcoin Network. Third-party service providers such as Bitcoin Exchanges and bitcoin third-party payment processing services may charge significant fees for processing transactions and for converting, or facilitating the conversion of, bitcoins to or from fiat currency.

    “Off-Blockchain transactions” involve the transfer of control over, or ownership of, a specific digital wallet holding bitcoins, or of the reallocation of ownership of certain bitcoins in a pooled-ownership digital wallet, such as a digital wallet owned by a Bitcoin Exchange. Off-Blockchain transactions are not truly bitcoin transactions in that they do not involve the transfer of transaction data on the Bitcoin Network and do not reflect a movement of bitcoins between addresses recorded in the Blockchain. Information and data regarding Off-Blockchain transactions are generally not publicly available in contrast to “true” bitcoin transactions, which are publicly recorded on the Blockchain. Off-Blockchain transactions are subject to risks as any such transfer of bitcoin ownership is not protected by the protocol behind the Bitcoin Network or recorded in and validated through the Blockchain mechanism.

    Overview of Bitcoin Transactions

    Prior to engaging in bitcoin transactions, a user must first obtain a digital bitcoin “wallet” (analogous to a bitcoin account) in which to store bitcoins. A wallet can be obtained, among other ways, through an open-source software program that generates bitcoin addresses and enables users to engage in the transfer of bitcoins with other users. A user may install a bitcoin software program on a computer or mobile device that will generate a bitcoin wallet or, alternatively, a user may retain a third party to create a digital wallet to be used for the same purpose. There is no limit on the number of digital wallets a user can have, and each such wallet includes one or more unique addresses and a verification system for each address consisting of a “public key” and a “private key,” which are mathematically related.

    In a typical bitcoin transaction, the bitcoin recipient must provide the spending party with the recipient's digital wallet address, an identifying series of 27 to 34 alphanumeric characters that represents the wallet's routing number on the Bitcoin Network and allows the Blockchain to record the sending of bitcoins to the recipient's wallet. The receiving party can provide this address to the spending party in alphanumeric format or an encoded format such as a Quick Response Code (commonly known as a QR Code), which may be scanned by a smartphone or other device to quickly transmit the information. This activity is analogous to a recipient providing an address in wire instructions to the payor so that cash may be wired to the recipient's account.

    After the provision of the receiving wallet's digital address, the spending party must enter the address into its bitcoin software program along with the number of bitcoins to be sent. The number of bitcoins to be sent will typically be agreed upon between the two parties based on a set number of bitcoins or an agreed upon conversion of the value of fiat currency to bitcoins. Most bitcoin software programs also allow, and often suggest, the payment of a transaction fee (also known as a miner's fee). Transaction fees are not required to be included by many bitcoin software programs, but, when they are included, they are paid by the spending party on top of the specified amount of bitcoins being sent in the transaction. Transaction fees, if any, are typically a fractional number of bitcoins (for example, 0.005 or 0.0005 bitcoins) and are automatically transferred by the Bitcoin Network to the bitcoin miner that solves and adds the block recording the spending transaction on the Blockchain.

    After the entry of the receiving wallet's address, the number of bitcoins to be sent and the transaction fees, if any, to be paid, the spending party will transmit the spending transaction. The transmission of the spending transaction results in the creation of a data packet by the spending party's bitcoin software program. The data packet includes data showing (i) the receiving wallet's address, (ii) the number of bitcoins being sent, (iii) the transaction fees, if any, and (iv) the spending party's digital signature, verifying the authenticity of the transaction. The data packet also includes references called “inputs” and “outputs,” which are used by the Blockchain to identify the source of the bitcoins being spent and record the flow of bitcoins from one transaction to the next transaction in which the bitcoins are spent. The digital signature exposes the spending party's digital wallet address and public key to the Bitcoin Network, though, for the receiving party, only its digital wallet address is revealed. The spending party's bitcoin software will transmit the data packet onto the decentralized Bitcoin Network, resulting in the propagation of the information among the software programs of bitcoin users across the Bitcoin Network for eventual inclusion in the Blockchain. Typically, the data will spread to a vast majority of bitcoin miners within the course of less than one minute.

    Bitcoin miners record transactions when they solve for and add blocks of information to the Blockchain. When a miner solves for a block, it creates that block, which includes data relating to (i) the solution to the block, (ii) a reference to the prior block in the Blockchain to which the new block is being added and (iii) all transactions that have occurred but have not yet been added to the Blockchain. The miner becomes aware of outstanding, unrecorded transactions through the data packet transmission and propagation discussed above. Typically, bitcoin transactions will be recorded in the next chronological block if the spending party has an internet connection and at least one minute has passed between the transaction's data packet transmission and the solution of the next block. If a transaction is not recorded in the next chronological block, it is usually recorded in the next block thereafter.

    Bitcoin transactions that are micropayments (typically, less than 0.01 bitcoins) and that do not include transaction fees to miners are currently deprioritized for recording, meaning that, depending on bitcoin miner policies, these transactions may take longer to record than typical transactions if the transactions do not include a transaction fee. Additionally, transactions initiated by spending wallets with poor connections to the Bitcoin Network (i.e., few or poor quality connections to nodes or “supernodes” that relay transaction data) may be delayed in the propagation of their transaction data and, therefore, transaction recording on the Blockchain. Finally, to the extent that a miner chooses to limit the transactions it includes in a solved block (whether by the payment of transaction fees or otherwise), a transaction not meeting that miner's criteria will not be included.

    To the extent that a transaction has not yet been recorded, there is a greater chance that the spending wallet can double-spend the bitcoins sent in the original transaction. If the next block solved is by an honest miner not involved in the attempt to double-spend bitcoin and if the transaction data for both the original and double-spend transactions have been propagated onto the Bitcoin Network, the transaction that is received with the earlier time stamp will be recorded by the solving miner, regardless of whether the double-spending transaction includes a larger transaction fee. If the double-spend transaction propagates to the solving miner and the original transaction has not, then the double-spending has a greater chance of success. As a result of the high difficulty in successfully initiating a double-spend without the assistance of a coordinated attack, the probability of success for a double-spend transaction attempt is limited.

    Upon the addition of a block included in the Blockchain, the bitcoin software program of both the spending party and the receiving party will show confirmation of the transaction on the Blockchain and reflect an adjustment to the bitcoin balance in each party's digital wallet, completing the bitcoin transaction. Typically, bitcoin software programs will automatically check for and display additional confirmations of six or more blocks in the Blockchain.

    To ensure the integrity of bitcoin transactions from the recipient's side (i.e., to prevent double-spending by a payor), every bitcoin transaction is broadcast to the Bitcoin Network and recorded in the Blockchain through the mining process, which time-stamps the transaction and memorializes the change in the ownership of the bitcoin(s) transferred. Adding a block to the Blockchain requires bitcoin miners to exert significant computational effort to verify it is a valid transaction. According to the Registration Statement, requiring this computational effort, or “proof of work,” prevents a malicious actor from either adding fraudulent blocks to generate bitcoins (i.e., counterfeit bitcoins) or overwriting existing valid blocks to reverse its prior transactions.

    A transaction in bitcoins between two parties is recorded in the Blockchain in a block only if that block is accepted as valid by a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network. Validation of a block is achieved by confirming the cryptographic “hash value” included in the block's solution and by the block's addition to the longest confirmed Blockchain on the Bitcoin Network. For a transaction, inclusion in a block on the Blockchain constitutes a “confirmation” of the bitcoin transaction. As each block contains a reference to the immediately preceding block, additional blocks appended to and incorporated into the Blockchain constitute additional confirmations of the transactions in such prior blocks, and a transaction included in a block for the first time is confirmed once against double-spending. The layered confirmation process makes changing historical blocks (and reversing transactions) exponentially more difficult the further back one goes in the Blockchain. Bitcoin Exchanges and users can set their own threshold as to how many confirmations are required until funds from the transferor are considered valid. However, statistically speaking, a transaction is virtually final after six confirmations as it would be extremely difficult to challenge the validity of the transaction at that point.

    According to the Registration Statement, at this point in the evolution of the Bitcoin Network, bitcoin transactions are considered irreversible. Once a transaction appears in the Blockchain, no one has the authority to reverse it. If someone were to attempt to undo a past transaction in a block recorded on the Blockchain, such individual would have to exert tremendous processing power in a series of complicated transactions that may not be achieved at this point in the Bitcoin Network's development.

    Bitcoin Security and Storage

    According to the Registration Statement, all transactions on the Bitcoin Network are secured using public-key cryptography, a technique which underpins many online transactions. Public-key cryptography works by generating two mathematically related keys (one a public key and the other a private key). One of these, the private key, is retained in the individual's digital wallet and the other key is made public and serves as the address to which bitcoin(s) can be transferred and from which money can be transferred by the owner of the bitcoin wallet. In the case of bitcoin transactions, the public key is an address (a string of letters and numbers) that is used to encode payments, which can then only be retrieved with its associated private key, which is used to authorize the transaction. In other words, the payor uses his private key to approve any transfers to a recipient's account. Users on the Bitcoin Network can confirm that the user signed the transaction with the appropriate private key, but cannot reverse engineer the private key from the signature.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is responsible for keeping the private key or keys that provide access to the Trust's digital wallets and vaults secure. Pursuant to a request from the Sponsor or the Trust, the Custodian will establish and maintain an account with one or more wallets (“Wallet Account”) and one or more cold-storage vault accounts (“Vault Account” and, together with the Wallet Account and any subaccounts associated therewith, the “Bitcoin Account”) in the name of the Sponsor and the Trust. The Custodian deposits and withdraws bitcoins to and from the Bitcoin Account at the instruction of the Sponsor. The Custodian is responsible for administering the Bitcoin Account.

    The Bitcoin Account is maintained by the Custodian and cold storage mechanisms are used for the Vault Account by the Custodian. Each digital wallet of the Trust may be accessed using its corresponding private key. The Custodian's custodial operations maintain custody of the private keys that have been deposited in cold storage at its various vaulting premises which are located in geographically dispersed locations across the world, including but not limited to the United States, Europe (including Switzerland) and South America. According to the Registration Statement, the locations of the vaulting premises change regularly and are kept confidential by the Custodian for security purposes.

    The term “cold storage” refers to a safeguarding method by which the private keys corresponding to bitcoins stored on a digital wallet are removed from any computers actively connected to the internet. Cold storage of private keys may involve keeping such wallet on a non-networked computer or electronic device or storing the public key and private keys relating to the digital wallet on a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) or printed medium (for example, papyrus or paper) and deleting the digital wallet from all computers. According to the Registration Statement, most of the private keys in the Wallet Account and all of the private keys in the Vault Account are kept in cold storage. A digital wallet may receive deposits of bitcoins but may not send bitcoins without use of the bitcoins' corresponding private keys. In order to send bitcoin from a digital wallet in which the private keys are kept in cold storage, either the private keys must be retrieved from cold storage and entered into a bitcoin software program to sign the transaction, or the unsigned transaction must be sent to the “cold” server in which the private keys are held for signature by the private keys. At that point, the user of the digital wallet can transfer its bitcoins.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian is the custodian of the Trust's private keys and will utilize certain security procedures such as algorithms, codes, passwords, encryption or telephone call-backs in the administration and operation of the Trust and the safekeeping of its bitcoins and private keys. The Custodian has created a Vault Account for the Trust assets in which private keys are placed in cold storage. According to the Registration Statement, the Custodian segregates the private keys stored with it from any other assets it holds or holds for others.

    According to the Registration Statement, multiple distinct private keys must sign any transaction in order to transfer the Trust's bitcoins from a multi-signature address to any other address on the Bitcoin blockchain. Distinct private keys required for multi-signature address transfers reside in geographically dispersed vault locations. The Custodian refers to these vault locations, where transactions are signed by private keys, as “signing vaults.” In addition to multiple signing vaults, the Custodian maintains multiple “back-up vaults” in which backup private keys are stored. According to the Registration Statement, in the event that one or more of the “signing vaults” were to be compromised, back-up vaults can be activated and used as signing vaults to complete a transaction within 72 hours.

    Therefore, according to the Registration Statement, if any one signing vault were to be compromised, it would have no impact on the ability of the Trust to access its bitcoins, other than a possible delay in operations of 72 hours, while one or more of the back-up vaults was transitioned to a signing vault. According to the Registration Statement, these security procedures ensure that there is no single point of failure in the protection of the Trust's assets.

    The Custodian is authorized to accept, on behalf of the Trust, deposits of bitcoins from “Authorized Participant Self-Administered Accounts” (as defined below) or “Liquidity Provider Accounts” (as defined below), as applicable, held with the Custodian and transfer such bitcoins into the Bitcoin Account. Deposits of bitcoins will be immediately available to the Trust to the extent such bitcoins have not already been transferred to the Vault Account. Bitcoins transferred to the Bitcoin Account will be directly deposited into digital wallets for which the keys are already in cold storage.

    According to the Registration Statement, if bitcoins need to be withdrawn from the Trust in connection with a redemption, the Custodian will ensure that the private keys to those bitcoins sign the withdrawal transaction.

    Bitcoin Mining and Creation of New Bitcoins

    According to the Registration Statement, the process by which bitcoins are created and bitcoin transactions are verified is called mining.15 To begin mining, a miner can download and run a mining client, which, like regular Bitcoin Network software programs, turns the user's computer into a “node” on the Bitcoin Network that validates blocks. Bitcoin transactions are recorded in new blocks that are added to the Blockchain and new bitcoins being issued to the miners. Miners, through the use of the bitcoin software program, engage in a set of prescribed complex mathematical calculations in order to add a block to the Blockchain and thereby confirm bitcoin transactions included in that block's data.

    15 None of the Trust, Sponsor or Genesis currently participates in mining or has plans to engage in mining in the future.

    In order to add blocks to the Blockchain, a miner must map an input data set (i.e., the Blockchain, plus a block of the most recent Bitcoin Network transactions and an arbitrary number called a “nonce”) to a desired output data set of a predetermined length, i.e., a hash value, using the SHA-256 cryptographic hash algorithm. Each unique block can only be solved and added to the Blockchain by one miner; therefore, all individual miners and mining pools on the Bitcoin Network are engaged in a competitive process of constantly increasing their computing power to improve their likelihood of solving for new blocks. According to the Registration Statement, as more miners join the Bitcoin Network and its processing power increases, the Bitcoin Network adjusts the complexity of the block-solving equation to maintain a predetermined pace of adding a new block to the Blockchain approximately every ten minutes.

    A miner's proposed block is added to the Blockchain once a majority of the nodes on the Bitcoin Network confirms the miner's work. Miners that are successful in adding a block to the Blockchain are automatically awarded bitcoins for their effort plus any transaction fees paid by transferors whose transactions are recorded in the block. This reward system is the method by which new bitcoins enter into circulation to the public.

    The supply of new bitcoins is mathematically controlled in a manner so that the number of bitcoins grows at a limited rate pursuant to a pre-set schedule. The number of bitcoins awarded for solving a new block is automatically halved after every 210,000 blocks are added to the Blockchain. Recently, in July 2016, the fixed reward for solving a new block decreased from 25 bitcoins to 12.5 bitcoins per block and this is expected to decrease by half to become 6.25 bitcoins after the next 210,000 blocks have entered the Bitcoin Network, which is expected to be July 2020. This deliberately controlled rate of bitcoin creation means that the number of bitcoins in existence will increase at a controlled rate until the number of bitcoins in existence reaches the pre-determined 21 million bitcoins. According to the Registration Statement, as of March 15, 2017, approximately 16.22 million bitcoins have been mined, and estimates of when the 21 million bitcoin limitation will be reached range up to the year 2140.

    Bitcoin Exchanges

    According to the Registration Statement, due to the peer-to-peer framework of the Bitcoin Network and the protocols thereunder, transferors and recipients of bitcoins are able to determine the value of the bitcoins transferred by mutual agreement or barter with respect to their transactions. As a result, the most common means of determining the value of a bitcoin is by surveying one or more Bitcoin Exchanges where bitcoins are bought, sold and traded. On each Bitcoin Exchange, bitcoins are traded with publicly disclosed valuations for each transaction, measured by one or more fiat currencies such as the U.S. dollar or the Chinese yuan.

    According to the Registration Statement, historically, a large percentage of the global trading volume occurred on self-reported, unregulated exchanges located in China. In January 2017, some of the largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges implemented certain adjustments to their terms, including the introduction of a 0.2% fixed-rate transaction fee for all bitcoin buy and sell orders. In February 2017, certain smaller China-based Bitcoin Exchanges also imposed or increased trading fees on their respective exchanges. In the subsequent weeks, some of the largest China-based Bitcoin Exchanges halted bitcoin withdrawals. According to the Registration Statement, these events have substantially reduced the volume traded on Chinese exchanges and changed the global liquidity profile for bitcoins.

    For example, according to the Registration Statement, from May 10, 2015 to January 24, 2017, the three primary China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.35 billion bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of 2.16 million bitcoins, comprising more than 95% of the global exchange-traded volume based on data from the Index Provider. According to the Registration Statement, during this period, the exchanges that comprised the Index, reported a total trade volume of 33.03 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of approximately 53,000 bitcoins, accounting for approximately 2.3% of the global exchange-traded volume and 78.5% of the U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume.

    However, according to the Registration Statement, from January 25, 2017 to March 15, 2017, following the introduction of fixed-rate transaction fees in response, the three primary China-based Bitcoin Exchanges, BTCC, Huobi and OKCoin, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.35 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of approximately 27,000 bitcoins, comprising only 25.2% of the global exchange-traded volume based on data from the Index Provider. During this period, the exchanges that comprised the Index, reported a total trade volume of approximately 1.89 million bitcoins and an average daily trade volume of nearly 39,000 bitcoins, accounting for 35.2% of the global exchange-traded volume and 73.6% of the U.S. dollar-denominated trade volume.

    According to the Registration Statement, similar to other currency pairs, such as euro to bitcoin, movements in pricing on the Chinese exchanges are generally in line with U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For example, according to the Registration Statement, based on data from the Index Provider, from May 10, 2015 to March 15, 2017, the 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”), spot price on the three primary Chinese yuan-denominated exchanges (BTC China, Huobi and OKCoin) differed from the “Bitcoin Index Price” (as defined below) by only 1.6% on average.

    According to the Registration Statement, bitcoin price indexes have also been developed by a number of service providers in the bitcoin space. For example, Coindesk, a digital currency content provider and wholly-owned subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, launched a proprietary bitcoin price index in September 2013, and bitcoinaverage.com provides an average of all bitcoin prices on several Bitcoin Exchanges. The Sponsor uses the Index calculated by the Index Provider to determine the “Bitcoin Index Price,” as described below under “Bitcoin Index Price.”

    Currently, there are numerous Bitcoin Exchanges operating worldwide in a number of currency pairs including, among others, bitcoin to U.S. dollar, bitcoin to euro, bitcoin to Chinese yuan and bitcoin to Indian rupee. According to the Registration Statement, most of the data with respect to prevailing valuations of bitcoin come from such Bitcoin Exchanges. These exchanges include established exchanges such as Bitstamp, GDAX and Bitfinex, which provide a number of options for buying and selling bitcoins. Among the Bitcoin Exchanges eligible for inclusion in the Index, domicile, regulation and legal compliance varies.

    The table below sets forth (1) the aggregate number of bitcoin trades made on the eight largest U.S. dollar-denominated Bitcoin Exchanges by trade volume from May 10, 2015 to March 15, 2017 and (2) the market share of trade volume of each such Bitcoin Exchange.

    Eight largest U.S. dollar-denominated bitcoin exchanges by trade volume 16 Volume
  • (BTC) 1718
  • Market share
  • (percent)
  • Bitcoin Exchanges included in the Index as of March 15, 2017: Bitfinex 13,953,081 32.10 BitStamp 6,447,743 14.83 GDAX (formerly known as Coinbase Exchange) 4,874,681 11.22 ItBit 3,275,893 7.54 Total U.S. dollar-bitcoin trade volume included in the Index as of March 15, 2017 28,551,399 65.69 Bitcoin Exchanges not included in the Index as of March 15, 2017: OKCoin 6,444,440 14.83 BTC-E 4,643,767 10.68 LakeBTC 2,978,524 6.85 Gemini 846,464 1.95 Total U.S. dollar-bitcoin trade volume not included in the Index as of March 15, 2017 14,913,196 34.31 Total U.S. dollar-bitcoin trade volume 43,464,594 100.00

    Information regarding each Bitcoin Exchange may be found, where available, on the Web sites for such Bitcoin Exchanges, among other places.

    16 According to the Registration Statement, although the Bitcoin Exchange, LocalBitcoins, accounts for approximately 3% of the U.S. dollar-bitcoin trade volume, the Sponsor does not consider it an appropriate Bitcoin Exchange to include in this analysis because LocalBitcoins does not have an online electronic trading platform that allows for the prices and volumes of bitcoin traded to be reliably tracked.

    17 According to the Registration Statement, these figures reflect the aggregate number of bitcoins traded on each named U.S. dollar-denominated Bitcoin Exchange from May 10, 2015 to March 15, 2017.

    18 According to the Registration Statement, as of May 10, 2015, Kraken EUR (U.S. dollar equivalent) was a component of the Index but was removed from the Index on May 11, 2015. The transactions on Kraken EUR were not a material component to the Index.

    Off-Exchange Bitcoin Trading

    According to the Registration Statement, in addition to open online Bitcoin Exchanges, there are “dark pools,” which are bitcoin trading platforms that do not publicly report bitcoin trade data. Market participants have the ability to execute large block trades on a dark pool without revealing those trades and the related price data to the public bitcoin exchange market, although any withdrawal from or deposit to a dark pool platform may be recorded on the Blockchain.19

    19 According to the Registration Statement, Genesis operates an OTC trading desk that buys and sells large blocks of bitcoins without publicly reporting trade data. Informal dark pools are currently believed to exist, particularly among wholesale buyers of bitcoin and bitcoin mining groups that obtain large supplies of bitcoin through mining. Such informal dark pools function as a result of the peer-to-peer nature of the Bitcoin Network, which allows direct transactions between any seller and buyer.

    Bitcoin may also be traded over-the-counter (“OTC”). OTC trades are not required to be reported through any facilities. However, according to the Sponsor, based on publicly available information, OTC trading may not represent a material volume of overall bitcoin trading. The OTC markets operate in a similar manner to dark pools. However, typically, OTC trades are institutional size block transactions (though on a much lower scale relative to the size of block transactions for other commodities or industries) or transactions made on behalf of high-net worth individuals.

    According to the Sponsor, some OTC intermediaries that facilitate OTC trading, such as Genesis and itBit, provide summary statistics on an ad hoc basis. For instance, in April 2016, itBit reported that it had traded approximately 25,500 bitcoins, valued at approximately $10.3 million U.S. dollars, which would account for roughly 1.94% of the bitcoin trading volume across the eight highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges. For the fourth quarter of 2016, Genesis reported trading approximately 70,326 bitcoins, valued at approximately $51.4 million U.S. dollars. According to the Sponsor, the reported Genesis volume would comprise roughly 2.33% of the trading volume across the eight highest volume U.S. dollar-denominated exchanges during that time period.

    Bitcoin Price Volatility 20

    20 Attached as Exhibit 3 hereto are tables relating to: (i) Rolling 3-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; (ii) average 3-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities; (iii) rolling 6-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; (iv) average 6-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities; (v) rolling 12-month volatility of bitcoin and other commodities; and (vi) average 12-month correlation of bitcoin to other commodities.

    According to the Sponsor, volatility in bitcoin was pronounced in its earliest days through late 2013. According to the Sponsor, during that time period, almost all bitcoin trading activity centered on two exchanges, which centralized the global order book and led to large price movements. Since then, the bitcoin trading environment has matured with the development of dozens of exchanges around the world, resulting in more transparency with respect to bitcoin pricing, in increased trading volume and in greater liquidity. Additionally, the globalization of bitcoin exchanges, ranging from those domiciled in the United States to other areas of the globe, such as China, has led to development of many bitcoin currency pairs, garnering more market participants. Today, the largest trading pairs are bitcoin to Chinese yuan, bitcoin to U.S. dollars and bitcoin to euro.

    Bitcoin price volatility has declined since the inception of bitcoin. According to the Sponsor and as detailed in Exhibit 3, recent figures, such as the three, six and twelve-month volatility charts, show that the volatility of bitcoin is now at levels comparable to those seen for other commodities such as natural gas and continues to trend downward.

    According to the Sponsor, while bitcoin price volatility has declined and its volatility approximately corresponds to that of certain commodities, the volatility of bitcoin is not correlated with the volatility of other commodities over shorter- (i.e., three to six months) and longer-term (i.e., longer than one year) investment horizons, reinforcing the important role bitcoin can play as a diversifying asset in an investor's portfolio.

    Demand for Bitcoin

    According to the Sponsor, demand for bitcoins is based on several factors. Demand may be based on speculation regarding the future appreciation of the value of bitcoins. Continuing development of various applications utilizing the Bitcoin Network for uses such as remittance, payment for goods and services, recording transfer of ownership of certain assets and settlement of both financial and non-financial assets have led many investors to speculate that the price of bitcoins will appreciate as use of these applications increases. As additional applications are developed, demand may increase. Additionally, some investors have developed analogs between bitcoin and other scarce assets such as gold. Bitcoin shares many of the same characteristics as gold, e.g., scarcity, but has superior utility, portability and divisibility. If investors shift a portion of their asset allocations from gold to bitcoin, the demand for bitcoins could increase. Furthermore, bitcoins are used in day-to-day transactions for the purchase of goods and services. As additional merchants continue to accept bitcoins for the purchase of goods and services, demand for bitcoins may increase. Relatedly, as merchants accept bitcoins for sales of goods and services, supply of bitcoins could increase on the exchange markets as these merchants look to liquidate their bitcoin for fiat currencies.

    Bitcoin Index Price

    The “Bitcoin Index Price” is the U.S. dollar value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, calculated at 4:00 p.m., E.T., on each business day. If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider in order to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price. If after such contact the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Administrator will utilize the following cascading set of rules to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price. For the avoidance of doubt, the Sponsor will employ the below rules sequentially and in the order presented below, should one or more specific rule(s) fail:

    (i) Bitcoin Index Price = The price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, the Index is a U.S. dollar-denominated composite reference rate for the price of bitcoin based on the volume-weighted price at trading venues selected by the Index Provider. Trading venues used to calculate the Index may include Bitcoin Exchanges, OTC markets or derivative platforms. According to the Registration Statement, to ensure that the Index Provider's trading venue selection process is impartial, the Index Provider considers depth of liquidity, compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements, data availability, U.S. domicile and acceptance of U.S. dollar deposits. The Index Provider conducts a quarterly review of these criteria. According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, the eligible Bitcoin Exchanges selected by the Index Provider include Bitfinex, Bitstamp, GDAX (formerly known as Coinbase Exchange) and itBit.21 Bitfinex is a trading platform based in Hong Kong for digital currencies, including bitcoin, that offers many advanced features such as margin and exchange trading and margin funding. Bitstamp is a European Union-based bitcoin marketplace that enables people from all around the world to safely buy and sell bitcoins. GDAX, based in San Francisco, California, is a digital currency exchange. itBit is a New York City-based, regulated global exchange that offers retail and institutional investors a powerful platform to buy and sell bitcoin. According to the Registration Statement, in the calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price, the Index Provider cleanses the trade data and compiles it in such a manner as to algorithmically reduce the impact of anomalistic or manipulative trading. This is accomplished by adjusting the weight of each input based on price deviation relative to the observable set of data for the relevant trading venue, as well as recent and long-term trading volume at each venue relative to the observable set for the relevant trading venues. The Index Provider reduces the weighting of data inputs as they get further from the mean price across the trading venues and ultimately excludes any trade with a price that deviates beyond a certain predetermined threshold level from the mean. In addition, the Index groups “trade bursts” (i.e., a group of small-size trades in a short period of time, typically under one second) and movements during off-peak trading hours on any given venue into single data inputs, which reduces the potentially erratic price movements caused by small, individual orders. The Index Provider formally reevaluates the weighting algorithm quarterly, but maintains discretion to change the way in which the Index is calculated based on its periodic review or in extreme circumstances. The precise formula underlying the Index is proprietary.

    According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider does not currently include data from OTC markets or derivative platforms. OTC data is not currently included because of the potential for trades to include a significant premium or discount paid for larger liquidity, which creates an uneven comparison relative to more active markets. There is also a higher potential for OTC transactions to not be arms-length and thus not be representative of a true market price. Bitcoin derivative markets are also not currently included as the markets remain relatively thin. According to the Registration Statement, the Index Provider will consider International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future.

    21 According to the Registration Statement, Digital Currency Group owns a minority interest in Coinbase, which operates the GDAX, representing approximately 0.5% of its equity and a minority interest in Paxos, which operates itBit, representing less than 0.3% of its equity.

    According to the Registration Statement, to calculate the Bitcoin Index Price, the weighting algorithm is applied to the price and volume of all inputs for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date. According to the Registration Statement, to measure volume data and trading halts, the Index Provider monitors trading activity and regards as eligible those Bitcoin Exchanges that it determines represent a substantial portion of U.S. dollar-denominated trading over a sustained period on a platform without a significant history of trading disruptions. The Index Provider maintains a monitoring system that tests for these criteria on an ongoing basis.

    The description of the Index is based on information publicly available at the Index Provider's Web site at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/. The Index spot price will be available on the Index Provider's Web site and/or from one or more major market data vendors.

    If the Index becomes unavailable, or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Index Provider to obtain the Bitcoin Index Price directly from the Index Provider. If after such contact, the Index remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Index does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (ii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price for the immediately preceding 24-hour period as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the valuation date as calculated based upon the volume-weighted average bitcoin prices of the Major Bitcoin Exchanges as published by an alternative third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from constituent exchanges) (“Second Source”). “Major Bitcoin Exchanges” are those Bitcoin Exchanges that are online, trade on a 24-hour basis and make transaction price and volume data publicly available. Subject to the next sentence, if the Second Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Second Source for bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Second Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Second Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Second Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (iii) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Major Bitcoin Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date as published by a third party's public data feed that the Sponsor believes is accurately and reliably providing market data (i.e., is receiving up-to-date and timely market data from eligible exchanges), subject to the requirement that such data is calculated based upon a volume-weighted average bitcoin price obtained from the Major Bitcoin Exchanges (“Third Source”). Subject to the next sentence, if the Third Source becomes unavailable (for example, data sources from the Third Source become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Third Source in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact the Third Source remains unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Third Source does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (iv) Bitcoin Index Price = The volume-weighted average bitcoin price as calculated by dividing (a) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges by (b) the total number of bitcoins traded on the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges, in each case for the 24-hour period from 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the business day prior to the valuation date to 4:00 p.m., E.T. (or as soon as practicable thereafter), on the valuation date. A “Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange” is a Bitcoin Exchange that represents at least 25% of the aggregate U.S. dollar-denominated trading volume of the bitcoin market during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any anti-money laundering (“AML”) and know-your-customer (“KYC”) procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction; provided that if there are fewer than three such Bitcoin Exchanges, then the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges will include such Bitcoin Exchange or Bitcoin Exchanges that meet the above-described requirements as well as one or more additional Bitcoin Exchanges, selected by the Sponsor, that have had monthly trading volume of at least 50,000 bitcoins during the last 30 consecutive calendar days and that to the knowledge of the Sponsor is in substantial compliance with the laws, rules and regulations, including any AML and KYC procedures, of such Bitcoin Exchange's applicable jurisdiction.

    The Sponsor will review the composition of the exchanges that comprise the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges at the beginning of each month, or more frequently if necessary, in order to ensure the accuracy of its composition. Subject to the next sentence, if one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges become unavailable (for example, data sources from the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges of bitcoin prices become unavailable, unwieldy or otherwise impractical for use), or if the Sponsor determines in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin value, then the Sponsor will, on a best efforts basis, contact the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange that is experiencing the service outages in an attempt to obtain the relevant data. If after such contact one or more of the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchanges remain unavailable or the Sponsor continues to believe in good faith that the Bitcoin Benchmark Exchange does not reflect an accurate bitcoin price, then the Sponsor will employ the next rule to determine the Bitcoin Index Price.

    (v) Bitcoin Index Price = The Sponsor will use its best judgment to determine a good faith estimate of the Bitcoin Index Price.

    Data used for the above calculation of the Bitcoin Index Price is gathered by the Administrator or its delegate who calculates the Bitcoin Index Price each business day as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable. The Administrator will disseminate the Bitcoin Index Price each business day.

    The Index Provider may change the trading venues that are used to calculate the Index, or otherwise change the way in which the Index is calculated at any time. The Index Provider does not have any obligation to consider the interests of the Sponsor, the Administrator, the Trust, the shareholders or anyone else in connection with such changes. The Index Provider is not required to publicize or explain the changes, or to alert the Sponsor or the Administrator to such changes. The Index Provider will consider IOSCO principles for financial benchmarks and the management of trading venues of bitcoin derivatives when considering inclusion of OTC or derivative platform data in the future.

    Bitcoin Holdings

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust's assets will consist solely of bitcoin. The Administrator will determine the value of the Trust for operational purposes (herein referred to as “Bitcoin Holdings”), which is the aggregate U.S. dollar value, based on the Bitcoin Index Price, of the Trust's bitcoins less its liabilities, on each day the Shares trade on the Exchange as of 4:00 p.m. E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable.22 The Administrator will also determine the Bitcoin Holdings per Share, which equals the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings divided by the number of outstanding Shares. The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share each business day at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon thereafter as practicable at the Trust's Web site at https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/#market-performance.

    22 Bitcoin Holdings is different than the GAAP net asset value referenced in the Registration Statement.

    To calculate the Bitcoin Holdings, the Administrator will determine the Bitcoin Index Price and multiply the Bitcoin Index Price by the aggregate number of bitcoins owned by the Trust as of 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the immediately preceding day. The Administrator will add the U.S. dollar value of any bitcoins, as calculated using the Bitcoin Index Price, receivable under pending creation orders, if any, determined by multiplying the number of creation Baskets represented by such creation orders by the Basket Bitcoin Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price. The Administrator will subtract (i) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins, as calculated using the Bitcoin Price Index, constituting any accrued but unpaid fees, (ii) the U.S. dollar value of the bitcoins to be distributed under pending redemption orders, determined by multiplying the number of redemption Baskets represented by such redemption orders by the Basket Bitcoin Amount and then multiplying such product by the Bitcoin Index Price and (iii) certain expenses of the Trust.

    The Sponsor will publish the Bitcoin Index Price, the Bitcoin Holdings and the Bitcoin Holdings per Share on the Trust's Web site as soon as practicable after its determination. If the Bitcoin Holdings and Bitcoin Holdings per Share have been calculated using a price per bitcoin other than the Bitcoin Index Price, the publication on the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation.

    While the Trust's investment objective is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the value of a bitcoin as represented by the Index, less the Trust's liabilities and expenses, the Shares may trade in the secondary market at prices that are lower or higher than the Bitcoin Holdings per Share. The amount of the discount or premium in the trading price relative to the Bitcoin Holdings per Share may be influenced by non-concurrent trading hours and liquidity between the secondary market and larger Bitcoin Exchanges in the bitcoin exchange market. While the Shares will be listed and trade on the Exchange from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m., E.T., liquidity in the global bitcoin markets may fluctuate depending upon the volume and availability of larger Bitcoin Exchanges. As a result, during periods in which bitcoin exchange market liquidity is limited or a major Bitcoin Exchange is off-line, trading spreads, and the resulting premium or discount, on the Shares may widen.

    Impact on Arbitrage

    Because of the potential for arbitrage inherent in the structure of the Trust, the Sponsor believes that the Shares will not trade at a material discount or premium to the underlying bitcoin held by the Trust. The arbitrage process, which in general provides investors the opportunity to profit from differences in prices of assets, increases the efficiency of the markets, serves to prevent potentially manipulative efforts, and can be expected to operate efficiently in the case of the Shares and bitcoin. If the price of the Shares deviates enough from the price of bitcoin to create a material discount or premium, an arbitrage opportunity is created. If the Shares are inexpensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may buy the Shares at a discount, immediately redeem them in exchange for bitcoin, and sell the bitcoin in the cash market at a profit. If the Shares are expensive compared to the bitcoin that underlies them, an arbitrageur may sell the Shares short, buy enough bitcoin to acquire the number of Shares sold short, acquire the Shares through the creation process, and deliver the Shares to close out the short position.23 In both instances, the arbitrageur serves to efficiently correct price discrepancies between the Shares and the underlying bitcoin.

    23 The Exchange states that the Trust, which will only hold bitcoin, differs from index-based exchange-traded funds, which may involve a trust holding hundreds or even thousands of underlying component securities, necessarily involving in the arbitrage process movements in a large number of security positions. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 46306 (August 2, 2002) (approving the UTP trading of Vanguard Total Market VIPERs based on the Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index).

    Creation and Redemption of Shares

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will issue and redeem “Baskets,” each equal to a block of 100 Shares, only to Authorized Participants. The size of a Basket is subject to change. The creation and redemption of a Basket require the delivery to the Trust, or the distribution by the Trust, of the number of whole and fractional bitcoins represented by each Basket being created or redeemed, the number of which is determined by dividing the number of bitcoins owned by the Trust at 4:00 p.m., E.T., on the trade date of a creation or redemption order, by the number of Shares outstanding at such time (calculated to one one-hundred-millionth of one bitcoin), as adjusted for the number of whole and fractional bitcoins constituting accrued but unpaid fees and expenses of the Trust and multiplying the quotient obtained by 100 (“Basket Bitcoin Amount”). The Basket Bitcoin Amount multiplied by the number of Baskets being created or redeemed is the “Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.” The Basket Bitcoin Amount will gradually decrease over time as the Trust's bitcoins are used to pay the Trust's expenses. According to the Registration Statement, as of the date of the Registration Statement, each Share currently represents approximately 0.093 of a bitcoin.

    Authorized Participants are the only persons that may place orders to create and redeem Baskets. Each Authorized Participant must (i) be a registered broker-dealer, (ii) enter into a participant agreement with the Sponsor, the Administrator, the Marketing Agent and the Liquidity Providers (“Participant Agreement”) and (iii) in the case of the creation or redemption of Baskets that do not use the “Conversion Procedures” (as defined below), own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to the Authorized Participant (“Authorized Participant Self-Administered Account”). Authorized Participants may act for their own accounts or as agents for broker-dealers, custodians and other securities market participants that wish to create or redeem Baskets. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants will only be able to redeem their Shares through an Authorized Participant.

    Although the Trust will create Baskets only upon the receipt of bitcoins, and will redeem Baskets only by distributing bitcoins, an Authorized Participant may deposit cash with the Administrator, which will facilitate the purchase or sale of bitcoins through a Liquidity Provider on behalf of an Authorized Participant (“Conversion Procedures”). “Liquidity Providers” must (i) enter into a Participant Agreement with the Sponsor, the Trust, the Marketing Agent and each Authorized Participant and (ii) own a bitcoin wallet address that is recognized by the Custodian as belonging to a Liquidity Provider (“Liquidity Provider Account”).

    The Conversion Procedures will be facilitated by a single Liquidity Provider. On an order-by-order basis, the Sponsor will select the Liquidity Provider that it believes will provide the best execution of the Conversion Procedures, and will base its decision on factors such as the Liquidity Provider's creditworthiness, financial stability, ability to obtain the best price, the timing and speed of execution, liquidity and the likelihood of, and capabilities in, execution, clearance and settlement. In the event that an order cannot be filled in its entirety by a single Liquidity Provider, additional Liquidity Provider(s) will be selected by the Sponsor to fill the remaining amount based on the criteria above.

    The trade date on which the Basket Bitcoin Amount is determined is different for in-kind and in-cash orders. For in-kind orders, the trade date is the day on which an order is placed, whereas the trade date for in-cash orders is the day after which an order is placed. This could result in a different execution price for in-kind and in-cash orders.

    For example, if an Authorized Participant submits an in-kind order at 2:00 p.m., E.T., on a Monday, the Basket Bitcoin Amount required to purchase a Basket of Shares will be determined at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon as practicable thereafter, on that same day. Alternatively, for in-cash orders, if an Authorized Participant submits an order at 2:00 p.m., E.T., on a Monday and pays the requisite Cash Collateral Amount (as defined below) at 3:00 p.m., E.T., on that same date, the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will nevertheless be determined at 4:00 p.m., E.T., or as soon as practicable thereafter, on Tuesday. Pursuant to the Conversion Procedures, the Authorized Participant is obligated to pay the Cash Exchange Rate (as defined below) which is calculated on Monday, times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, which is calculated on Tuesday. The Liquidity Provider is required to deposit the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount as calculated on Tuesday, even if there were a chance [sic] in the price of bitcoin since Monday.

    To create Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the trade date. In-kind creation orders must be placed no later than 3:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order, and this determination will be communicated to the Authorized Participant by the Administrator on that same date. The Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., on that date. On the business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will transfer the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Custodian. Once the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Custodian, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant.

    To create Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a creation order on the business day preceding the trade date. In-cash creation orders must be placed no later than 4:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the creation order, and this determination will be communicated to the Authorized Participants by the Administrator on that same date. Upon receiving instruction from the Administrator that a creation order has been accepted by the Marketing Agent, the Authorized Participant will send 110% of the U.S. dollar value of the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount (“Cash Collateral Amount”). The Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., the following day. Once the Cash Collateral Amount is received by the Administrator, the Sponsor will notify the Liquidity Provider of the creation order. The Liquidity Provider will then provide a firm quote to the Authorized Participant for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, determined by using the “Cash Exchange Rate,” which, in the case of a creation order, is the Index spot price at the time at which the Cash Collateral Amount is received by the Administrator, plus applicable fees. If the Liquidity Provider's quote is greater than the Cash Collateral Amount received, the Authorized Participant will be required to pay the difference. Provided that payment for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount is received by the Administrator, the Liquidity Provider will deliver the bitcoins to the Custodian on the settlement date on behalf of the Authorized Participant. The Liquidity Provider may realize any arbitrage opportunity between the firm quote that it provides to the Authorized Participant and the price at which it sources the requisite bitcoin for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount. After the Custodian receives the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, the Administrator will instruct the Transfer Agent to deliver the Creation Baskets to the Authorized Participant. The Administrator will then send the Liquidity Provider the cash equal to the Cash Exchange Rate times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, plus applicable fees. The Administrator will return any remaining amount of the Cash Collateral Amount to the Authorized Participant.

    To redeem Baskets in-kind, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order on the trade date. In-kind redemption orders must be placed no later than 3:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order and the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount will be determined as soon as practicable after 4:00 p.m., E.T., on that same date. On the second business day following the trade date, the Authorized Participant will deliver to the Transfer Agent redemption Baskets from its account. Once the redemption Baskets are received by the Transfer Agent, the Custodian will transfer the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount to the Authorized Participant and the Transfer Agent will cancel the Shares.

    To redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures, Authorized Participants will send the Administrator a redemption order. In-cash redemption orders must be placed no later than 4:59:59 p.m., E.T., on each business day. The Marketing Agent will accept or reject the redemption order on that same date. A Liquidity Provider will then provide a firm quote to an Authorized Participant for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, determined by using the “Cash Exchange Rate,” which, in the case of a redemption order, is the Index spot price minus applicable fees at the time at which the Administrator notifies the Authorized Participant that an order has been accepted.

    The Liquidity Provider will send the Administrator the cash proceeds equal to the Cash Exchange Rate times the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount, minus applicable fees. The Liquidity Provider may realize any arbitrage opportunity between the firm quote that it provides to the Authorized Participant and the price at which it sells the requisite bitcoin for the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount. Once the Authorized Participant delivers the redemption Baskets to the Transfer Agent, the Administrator will send the cash proceeds to the Authorized Participant and the Transfer Agent will cancel the Shares. At the instruction of the Administrator, the Custodian will then send the Liquidity Provider the Total Basket Bitcoin Amount.

    The Sponsor represents that Liquidity Providers will only transact with exchanges and OTC trading partners that have met AML and KYC regulatory requirements. Authorized Participants that create and redeem Baskets using the Conversion Procedures will be responsible for reimbursing the relevant Liquidity Provider for any expenses incurred in connection with the Conversion Procedures. The Authorized Participants will also pay a variable fee to the Administrator for its facilitation of the Conversion Procedures. There are no other fees related to the Conversion Procedures that will be charged by the Sponsor or the Custodian.

    The creation or redemption of Shares may be suspended generally, or refused with respect to particular requested creations or redemptions, during any period when the transfer books of the Transfer Agent are closed or if circumstances outside the control of the Sponsor or its delegates make it for all practical purposes not feasible to process creation orders or redemption orders. The Administrator may reject an order if such order is not presented in proper form as described in the Participant Agreement or if the fulfillment of the order, in the opinion of counsel, might be unlawful.

    Availability of Information

    The Trust's Web site (https://grayscale.co/bitcoin-investment-trust/) will include quantitative information on a per-Share basis updated on a daily basis, including, for the Trust (i) the current Bitcoin Holdings per Share daily and the prior business day's Bitcoin Holdings and the reported closing price, (ii) the mid-point of the bid-ask price 24 in relation to the Bitcoin Holdings as of the time the Bitcoin Holdings is calculated (“Bid-Ask Price”) and a calculation of the premium or discount of such price against such Bitcoin Holdings and (iii) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid-Ask Price against the Bitcoin Holdings, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of the Trust, if shorter). In addition, on each business day the Trust's Web site will provide pricing information for the Shares.

    24 The bid-ask price of the Trust is determined using the highest bid and lowest offer on the Consolidated Tape as of the time of calculation of the closing day Bitcoin Holdings.

    The Trust's Web site will provide an intra-day indicative value (“IIV”) per Share updated every 15 seconds, as calculated by the Exchange or a third party financial data provider during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., E.T.) 25 The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing Bitcoin Holdings per Share as a base and updating that value during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session to reflect changes in the value of the Trust's bitcoin holdings during the trading day.

    25 The IIV on a per Share basis disseminated during the Core Trading Session should not be viewed as a real-time update of the Bitcoin Holdings, which is calculated once a day.

    The IIV disseminated during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session should not be viewed as an actual real time update of the Bitcoin Holdings, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services.

    The Bitcoin Holdings for the Trust will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time. To the extent that the Administrator has utilized the cascading set of rules described in “Bitcoin Index Price” above, the Trust's Web site will note the valuation methodology used and the price per bitcoin resulting from such calculation. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”).

    Quotation and last sale information for bitcoin will be widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. In addition, the complete real-time price (and volume) data for bitcoin is available by subscription from Reuters and Bloomberg. The spot price of bitcoin is available on a 24-hour basis from major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in bitcoin will be available from major market data vendors and from the exchanges on which bitcoin are traded. The normal trading hours for bitcoin exchanges are 24-hours per day, 365-days per year.

    The Trust will provide Web site disclosure of its Bitcoin Holdings daily. The Web site disclosure of the Trust's Bitcoin Holdings will occur at the same time as the disclosure by the Sponsor of the Bitcoin Holdings to Authorized Participants so that all market participants are provided such portfolio information at the same time. Therefore, the same portfolio information will be provided on the public Web site as well as in electronic files provided to Authorized Participants. Accordingly, each investor will have access to the current Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust through the Trust's Web site.

    Additional information regarding the Index may be found at https://tradeblock.com/markets/index/.

    Trading Rules

    The Trust will be subject to the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201, including 8.201(e), for initial and continued listing of the Shares. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be required to be outstanding at the start of trading. With respect to application of Rule 10A-3 under the Act, the Trust will rely on the exception contained in Rule 10A-3(c)(7). The Exchange believes that the anticipated minimum number of Shares outstanding at the start of trading is sufficient to provide adequate market liquidity.

    The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. Trading in the Shares on the Exchange will occur in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a).26 The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.

    26 The Exchange has three trading sessions for Commodity-Based Trust Shares each day the Corporation is open for business unless otherwise determined by the Corporation: (i) The Opening Session begins at 1:00 a.m., Pacific Time (“P.T.”), and conclude at the commencement of the Core Trading Session; (ii) the Core Trading Session begins for each security at 6:30 a.m., P.T., or at the conclusion of the Market Order Auction, whichever comes later, and conclude at 1:15 p.m., P.T.; and (iii) the Late Trading Session begins following the conclusion of the Core Trading Session and concludes at 5:00 p.m., P.T.

    Further, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201 sets forth certain restrictions on Equity Trading Permit Holders (“ETP Holders”) acting as registered Market Makers in the Shares to facilitate surveillance. Pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker in the Shares is required to provide the Exchange with information relating to its trading in the underlying bitcoin, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Commentary .04 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.3 requires an ETP Holder acting as a registered Market Maker, and its affiliates, in the Shares to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of any material nonpublic information with respect to such products, any components of the related products, any physical asset or commodity underlying the product, applicable currencies, underlying indexes, related futures or options on futures and any related derivative instruments (including the Shares).

    As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its ETP Holders and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling an ETP Holder. A subsidiary or affiliate of an ETP Holder that does business only in commodities or futures contracts would not be subject to Exchange jurisdiction, but the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.

    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. Trading on the Exchange in the Shares may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) The extent to which conditions in the underlying bitcoin markets have caused disruptions and/or lack of trading or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. In addition, trading in Shares will be subject to trading halts caused by extraordinary market volatility pursuant to the Exchange's “circuit breaker” rule.27

    27See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.

    The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares if the Bitcoin Holdings of the Trust is not calculated or disseminated daily. The Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption occurs to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price, as discussed above. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price persists past the trading day in which it occurs, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.28 In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Bitcoin Holdings with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Bitcoin Holdings is available to all market participants.

    28 The Exchange notes that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price occurs.

    Surveillance

    The Exchange represents that trading in the Shares will be subject to the existing trading surveillances administered by the Exchange, as well as cross-market surveillances administered by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.29 The Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and federal securities laws applicable to trading on the Exchange.

    29 FINRA conducts cross market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.

    The surveillances referred to above generally focus on detecting securities trading outside their normal patterns, which could be indicative of manipulative or other violative activity. When such situations are detected, surveillance analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading violations.

    The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets and other entities that are members of the Intermarket Surveillance Group (“ISG”), and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (“CSSA”).30

    30 For the list of current members of ISG, see https://www.isgportal.org/home.html.

    Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), the Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying bitcoin or any bitcoin derivative through ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market.

    The Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.

    All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (i) the description of the portfolio, (ii) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets or (iii) the applicability of Exchange rules and surveillance procedures shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares on the Exchange.

    The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Trust to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Trust is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).

    Information Bulletin

    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its ETP Holders in an “Information Bulletin” of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares in Baskets (including noting that the Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its ETP Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information regarding how the Index and the IIV are disseminated; (4) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; (5) the possibility that trading spreads and the resulting premium or discount on the Shares may widen during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions, when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; and (6) trading information. For example, the Information Bulletin will advise ETP Holders, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Trust. The Exchange notes that investors purchasing Shares directly from the Trust will receive a prospectus. ETP Holders purchasing Shares from the Trust for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors.

    In addition, the Information Bulletin will reference that the Trust is subject to various fees and expenses as described in the Registration Statement. The Information Bulletin will disclose that information about the Shares of the Trust is publicly available on the Trust's Web site.

    The Information Bulletin will also discuss any relief, if granted, by the Commission or the staff from any rules under the Act.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 31 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    31 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares from such markets. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a CSSA. Also, pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201(g), the Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying bitcoin or any bitcoin derivative through ETP Holders acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with such ETP Holders' proprietary or customer trades through ETP Holders which they effect on any relevant market.

    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that there is a considerable amount of bitcoin price and bitcoin market information available on public Web sites and through professional and subscription services. Investors may obtain on a 24-hour basis bitcoin pricing information based on the spot price for bitcoin from various financial information service providers. The closing price and settlement prices of bitcoin are readily available from the bitcoin exchanges and other publicly available Web sites. In addition, such prices are published in public sources, or on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters. The Trust will provide Web site disclosure of its bitcoin holdings daily. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session (normally 9:30 a.m., E.T., to 4:00 p.m., E.T.) by one or more major market data vendors. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services. The Exchange represents that the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which an interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the Index spot price persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption. In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the Bitcoin Holdings with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the Bitcoin Holdings is available to all market participants. The Bitcoin Holdings per Share will be calculated daily and made available to all market participants at the same time. One or more major market data vendors will disseminate for the Trust on a daily basis information with respect to the most recent Bitcoin Holdings per Share and Shares outstanding.

    The proposed rule change is designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest in that it will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace. As noted above, the Exchange has in place surveillance procedures relating to trading in the Shares and may obtain information via ISG from other exchanges that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has entered into a CSSA. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Trust's bitcoin holdings, IIV and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    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. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional type of exchange-traded product, and the first such product based on bitcoin, which will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

    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. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-NYSEArca-2017-06 and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 32 to determine whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved. Institution of proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule change, as discussed below. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule change.

    32 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,33 the Commission is providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration. The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be “designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” and “to protect investors and the public interest.” 34

    33Id.

    34 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.35

    35 Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding—either oral or notice and opportunity for written comments—is appropriate for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory organization. See Securities Act Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by May 18, 2017. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by June 1, 2017. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal and statements of commenters.36 In addition to any other comments commenters may wish to submit about the proposed rule change, the Commission invites commenters' views concerning any features that distinguish the Exchange's proposal from other proposals to list and trade shares of commodity-trust ETPs.

    36See supra notes 6 & 7.

    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-NYSEArca-2017-06 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 Numbers SR-NYSEArca-2017-06. 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 these filings 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-NYSEArca-2017-06 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2017. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by June 1, 2017.

    37 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12) and 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.37

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08462 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80506; File No. SR-ICC-2017-003] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures April 21, 2017.

    On February 16, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change (SR-ICC-2017-003) to amend ICC's End-of-Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures to implement a new price submission process for Clearing Participants (“CP”). The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 9, 2017.3 The Commission received no comments regarding the proposed changes.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80150 (March 3, 2017), 82 FR 13173 (March 9, 2017) (SR-ICC-2017-003) (“Notice”).

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act provides that within 45 days of the publication of the notice of the filing or a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.4 The 45th day from the publication of the Notice is April 23, 2017.

    4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. ICC proposes to revise its End of Day Price Discovery Policies and Procedures to implement a new Clearing Participant price submission process to remove the intermediary agent through which Clearing Participants currently submit required prices, and replace it with a process through which Clearing Participants submit prices directly to ICC. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider ICC's proposed rule change and the associated operational risks.

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, extends the period by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-ICC-2017-003) to no later than June 7, 2017.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.5

    5 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08466 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80505; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-14] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, To List and Trade Shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund, a Series of the Amplify ETF Trust, Under BZX Rule 14.11(i), Managed Fund Shares April 21, 2017.

    On February 17, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Amplify YieldShares Oil Hedged MLP Fund, a series of the Amplify ETF Trust. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 7, 2017.3 On March 30, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change, and on April 7, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.4 The Exchange filed Amendment No. 4 to the proposed rule change on April 19, 2017.5 The Commission has received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80136 (March 1, 2017), 82 FR 12860.

    4 The Exchange filed and withdrew Amendment No. 1 on March 30, 2017 and subsequently filed Amendment No. 2, which replaced the original filing in its entirety. Amendment No. 3, which replaced the original filing in its entirety, is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-14/batsbzx201714-1692102-149689.pdf. Because Amendment No. 3 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.

    5 Amendment No. 4, which partially amends the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 3, is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2017-14/batsbzx201714-1711101-150239.pdf. Because Amendment No. 4 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.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 6 provides that within 45 days of the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change is April 21, 2017. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 designates June 5, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-14), as modified by Amendment Nos. 3 and 4.

    7Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.8

    8 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08465 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release Nos. 33-10350; 34-80512; File No. 265-27] SEC Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Small and Emerging Companies is providing notice that it will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, May 10, 2017, in Multi-Purpose Room LL-006 at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. (EST) and will be open to the public. The meeting will be webcast on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov. Persons needing special accommodations to take part because of a disability should notify the contact person listed below. The public is invited to submit written statements to the Committee. The agenda for the meeting includes matters relating to rules and regulations affecting small and emerging companies under the federal securities laws. Notice of this meeting is less than fifteen days prior to the meeting due to an administrative delay.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 10, 2017. Written statements should be received on or before May 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC. Written statements may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Statements

    • Use the Commission's Internet submission form (http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml); or

    • Send an email message to [email protected] Please include File Number 265-27 on the subject line; or

    Paper Statements

    • Send paper statements to Brent J. Fields, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File No. 265-27. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your statement more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all statements on the Advisory Committee's Web site (https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/acsec.shtml).

    Statements also 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. All statements received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Z. Davis, Senior Special Counsel, at (202) 551-3460, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C.-App. 1, and the regulations thereunder, Elizabeth M. Murphy, responsible as Designated Federal Officer of the Committee, has ordered publication of this notice.

    Dated: April 24, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08534 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80510; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-034] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Rule 5.7 April 21, 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 12, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “CBOE”) 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 as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change 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 Rule 5.7. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed]) Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 5.7. Adjustments

    Options contracts are subject to adjustments in accordance with the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation. [When adjustments have been made, announcement of that fact will be made by the Exchange, and the adjusted unit of trading and the adjusted exercise price will be posted at the post at which the series is traded and will be effective at the time specified in the announcement for all subsequent transactions in that series.]

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's Web site (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 Rule 5.7. Currently, Rule 5.7 states options contracts are subject to adjustments in accordance with the Rules of the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”). When adjustments have been made, announcement of that fact will be made by the Exchange, and the adjusted unit of trading and the adjusted exercise price will be posted at the post at which the series is traded and will be effective at the time specified in the announcement for all subsequent transactions in that series.

    OCC lists and clears all options that trade on national securities exchanges. As stated in Rule 5.7, OCC rules govern options contract adjustments. OCC has sole discretion for adjustment decisions to ensure those decisions are consistent, efficient and free from undue influence. Because OCC's rules govern and provide OCC with sole discretion regarding options contract adjustments, including how and when these adjustments are made,5 CBOE does not believe it is necessary to have any role in the contract adjustment process.6 When OCC adjusts an options contract, OCC issues an information circular and publishes other information regarding the adjustment on its Web site. As a result, all Trading Permit Holders have access to information regarding contract adjustments from OCC.7 Therefore, CBOE does not believe its rules should impose any requirements on CBOE to announce contract adjustments made by OCC.8 CBOE proposes to amend Rule 5.7 by deleting the requirement to announce contract adjustments, as it is duplicative of OCC's requirement to publish this information. The Exchange also proposes to delete the requirement to post the adjusted unit of trading and exercise price at the post at which the series is traded. The concept of posting information at a trading post on the trading floor is outdated, as the Exchange's current primary means of communicating information to Trading Permit Holders is electronic means, such as via Regulatory Circular or Web site posting.

    5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-69977 (July 11, 2013), 78 FR 42815, 42816-42817 (July 17, 2013) (SR-OCC-2013-05) (order approving proposed rule change to provide that OCC, rather than adjustment panel of the securities committee, will determine adjustments to the terms of options contracts to account for certain events, such as certain dividend distributions or other corporate actions, that affect the underlying security or other underlying interest).

    6 CBOE does not comment on contract adjustments, and directs investors to contact OCC for information on contract adjustments. CBOE cannot provide guidance as to how OCC's by-laws or rules may be applied in any particular situation.

    7See http://www.theocc.com/webapps/infomemos. OCC's Web site permits investors to subscribe (free of charge) to directly receive information memos regarding contract adjustments from OCC when issued.

    8 Currently, CBOE publishes information regarding contract adjustments on its Web site. See http://www.cboe.com/trading-resources/contract-adjustments.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.9 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) 10 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) 11 requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    11Id.

    In particular, the proposed rule change is consistent with the rules of OCC, the lister and clearer of all listed options, with respect to contract adjustments. OCC will continue to make contract adjustments in accordance with its rules (as set forth in Rule 5.7), and all investors will continue to have access to information regarding contract adjustments directly from OCC. The proposed rule change has no impact on the manner in which contract adjustments are made, as OCC has sole discretion to make those determinations. The proposed rule change merely deletes CBOE's duplicative obligation to announce and post this information, which benefits investors.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE 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. OCC will continue to make contract adjustments in accordance with its rules, and all investors will continue to have access to information regarding contract adjustments directly from OCC. The proposed rule change has no impact on the manner in which contract adjustments are made, as OCC has sole discretion to make those determinations. The proposed rule change merely deletes CBOE's duplicative obligation to announce and post this information, and thus has no impact on competition.

    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 12 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 13 thereunder.

    12 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    13 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.

    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 will 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-CBOE-2017-034 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-CBOE-2017-034. 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-CBOE-2017-034 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.14

    14 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08467 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80500; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-103] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 to a Proposed Rule Change Allowing the Exchange To Trade, Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges, Any NMS Stock Listed on Another National Securities Exchange; Establishing Rules for the Trading Pursuant to UTP of Exchange-Traded Products; and Adopting New Equity Trading Rules Relating to Trading Halts of Securities Traded Pursuant to UTP on the Pillar Platform April 21, 2017.

    On June 30, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (“Exchange” or “NYSE MKT”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to (1) allow the Exchange to trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) any NMS Stock 3 listed on another national securities exchange; (2) establish listing and trading requirements for exchange-traded products (“ETPs”); and (3) adopt new equity trading rules relating to trading halts for securities traded pursuant to UTP on the Exchange's new trading platform, Pillar. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on December 1, 2016.4

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 The term “NMS Stock” is defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS. See 17 CFR 242.600(b)(47).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79400 (Nov. 25, 2016), 81 FR 86750 (Dec. 1, 2016).

    On January 4, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,5 the Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.6 On February 24, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.7 The Commission has received no comments on the proposed rule change.

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79738 (Jan. 4, 2017), 82 FR 3068 (Jan. 10, 2017).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80097 (Feb. 24, 2017), 82 FR 12251 (Mar. 1, 2017). Specifically, the Commission instituted proceedings to allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 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,” and “to protect investors and the public interest.” See id. at 12252.

    On March 28, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.8 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    8 The full text of Amendment No. 1, including Exhibits 4 and 5, is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysemkt-2016-103/nysemkt2016103-1672987-149219.pdf.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to (1) allow the Exchange to trade pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) for any NMS Stock listed on another national securities exchange; (2) establish rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of exchange traded products (“ETPs”); and (3) adopt new equity trading rules relating to trading halts of securities traded pursuant to UTP on the Pillar platform. This Amendment No. 1 supersedes the original filing in its entirety. This Amendment No. 1 also amends the proposed rules to conform to the rules of NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), as they may have been amended since the date of the original filing. The proposed rule 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 is proposing new rules to trade all Tape A and Tape C symbols, on a UTP basis, on its new trading platform, Pillar.9

    9 On January 29, 2015, the Exchange announced the implementation of Pillar, which is an integrated trading technology platform designed to use a single specification for connecting to the equities and options markets operated by the Exchange and its affiliates, NYSE Arca and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE LLC”). See Trader Update dated January 29, 2015, available here: http://www1.nyse.com/pdfs/Pillar_Trader_Update_Jan_2015.pdf. In February 2016, NYSE Arca Equities was the first market to begin migration to the Pillar platform. In March of 2016, NYSE Group, Inc. announced the completion of a “key phase” of the project and, in May 2016, NYSE Group, Inc. completed the rollout of NYSE Pillar matching engines on NYSE Arca. The next phase of the NYSE Pillar migration began in November 2016 with certification testing for the new gateways and protocols. See Content To Live: https://WWW.NYSE.COM/PILLAR.

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing rules for the trading on Pillar pursuant to UTP of the following types of Exchange Traded Products: 10

    10 The Exchange is proposing to define the term “Exchange Traded Product” to mean a security that meets the definition of “derivative securities product” in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See proposed Rule 1.1E(bbb). This proposed definition is identical to the definition of “Derivatives Securities Product” in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(bbb).

    • Equity Linked Notes (“ELNs”);

    • Investment Company Units;

    • Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes;

    • Equity Gold Shares;

    • Equity Index-Linked Securities;

    • Commodity-Linked Securities;

    • Currency-Linked Securities;

    • Fixed-Income Index-Linked Securities;

    • Futures-Linked Securities;

    • Multifactor-Index-Linked Securities;

    • Trust Certificates;

    • Currency and Index Warrants;

    • Portfolio Depositary Receipts;

    • Trust Issued Receipts;

    • Commodity-Based Trust Shares;

    • Currency Trust Shares;

    • Commodity Index Trust Shares;

    • Commodity Futures Trust Shares;

    • Partnership Units;

    • Paired Trust Shares;

    • Trust Units;

    • Managed Fund Shares; and

    • Managed Trust Securities.

    The Exchange's proposed rules for these products are substantially identical (other than with respects to certain non-substantive and technical amendments described below) as the rules of NYSE Arca Equities for the qualification, listing and trading of such products.11

    11See NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5 (Listings) and 8 (Trading of Certain Equities Derivatives).

    The Exchange's approach in this filing is the same as the approach of (1) BATS BYX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), which filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to conform its rules to the rules of its affiliate, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc. (“BATS”),12 (2) NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, which filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to amend its rules regarding Portfolio Depository Receipts and Index Fund Shares to conform to the rules of NYSE Arca,13 and (3) American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), which filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to copy all of the relevant rules of Amex in their entirety (other than with respects to certain non-substantive and technical changes) for adoption by its new trading platform for equity products and exchange traded funds—AEMI.14

    12See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63097 (October 13, 2010), 75 FR 64767 (October 20, 2010) (SR-BYX-2010-002).

    13See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69928 (July 3, 2013), 78 FR 41489 (July 10, 2013) (SR-NASDAQ-2013-094).

    14See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54552 (September 29, 2006), 71 FR 59546 (October 10, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-104) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54145 (July 14, 2006), 71 FR 41654 (July 21, 2006) (SR-Amex-2005-104).

    The Exchange's only trading pursuant to UTP will be on the Pillar platform; it will not trade securities pursuant to UTP on its current platform. Further, at this time, the Exchange does not intend to list ETPs on its Pillar platform and will only trade ETPs on the Pillar platform pursuant to UTP.15 Therefore, the Exchange is only proposing ETP rules in this rule filing that would apply to the Pillar platform and trading pursuant to UTP. Since the Exchange does not plan to trade ETPs on the Pillar platform that would be listed under these proposed rules, the Exchange is not proposing to change any of the current rules of the Exchange pertaining to the listing and trading of ETPs in the NYSE MKT Company Guide 16 or in its other rules.

    15 The Exchange currently lists five ETPs on its current trading platform. These ETPs will continue to be listed and traded pursuant to the NYSE MKT Company Guide and the other rules of the Exchange that do not apply to the Pillar platform.

    16 NYSE MKT Company Guide, http://wallstreet.cch.com/MKT/CompanyGuide/.

    In accordance with the rule numbering framework adopted by the Exchange in the Pillar Framework Filing,17 each rule proposed herein would have the same rule numbers as the NYSE Arca Equities rules with which it conforms.

    17See, SR-NYSEMKT-2016-97 Initial Filing (October 25, 2016) (“Pillar Framework Filing”). The Exchange is using the same rule numbering framework as the NYSE Arca Equities rules and would consist of proposed Rules 1E-13E. Rules 1E-13E would be operative for securities that are trading on the Pillar trading platform.

    Finally, in the Pillar Framework Filing, the Exchange adopted rules grouped under proposed Rule 7E relating to equities trading.18 The Exchange now proposes Rule 7.18E under Rule 7E relating to trading halts of securities traded pursuant to UTP on the Pillar platform. The Exchange's proposed Rule 7.18E is substantially identical (other than with respects to certain non-substantive and technical amendments described below) as NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18.19

    18 The Pillar Framework Filing added Rules 7.5E and 7.6E to establish the trading units and trading differentials for trading on the Pillar platform. The Exchange also added Rule 7.12E, related to Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility in the Pillar Framework Filing. Since trading on the Pillar platform will be under these new rules, the Exchange specified in the Pillar Framework Filing that current Exchange Rule 7-Equities (which defines the term “Exchange BBO”) would not be applicable to trading on the Pillar trading platform. In addition, with the exception of Rules 7.5E, 7.6E and 7.12E, the Exchange added Rules 7.1E-Rule 7.44E on a “Reserved” basis. Id.

    19See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18. See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75467 (July 16, 2015), 80 FR 43515 (July 22, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-58), as amended by Amendment No. 1; Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76198A (October 20, 2015), 80 FR 65274 (October 26, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-58).

    Proposal To Trade Securities Pursuant to UTP

    The Exchange is proposing new Rule 5.1E(a) to establish rules regarding the extension of UTP securities to the Pillar platform, which are listed on other national securities exchanges. As proposed, the first sentence of new Rule 5.1E(a) would allow the Exchange to trade securities eligible for UTP under Section 12(f) of the Exchange Act.20 This proposed text is identical to Rules 14.1 of both BYX and EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”) and substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(a).

    20 Section 12(f) of the Exchange Act. 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).

    Proposed Rule 5.1E(a) would adopt rules reflecting requirements for trading products on the Exchange pursuant to UTP that have been established in various new product proposals previously approved by the Commission.21 In addition, proposed Rule 5.1E(a) would state that the securities the Exchange trades pursuant to UTP would be traded on the new Pillar trading platform under the rules applicable to such trading.22 Accordingly, the Exchange would not trade UTP securities on the Pillar platform until its trading rules for the Pillar platform are effective.

    21See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(a)(1) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67066 (May 29, 2012), 77 FR 33010 (June 4, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-46); BATS Rule 14.11 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58623 (September 23, 2008), 73 FR 57169 (October 1, 2008) (SR-BATS-2008-004); National Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NSX”) Rule 15.9 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57448 (March 6, 2008), 73 FR 13597 (March 13, 2008) (SR-NSX-2008-05); NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (“Phlx”) Phlx Rule 803(o) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57806 (May 9, 2008), 73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx2008-34); International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) ISE Rule 2101 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57387 (February 27, 2008), 73 FR 11965 (March 5, 2008) (SR-ISE-2007-99).

    22See supra note 17.

    Finally, proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(1) would make clear that the Exchange would not list any ETPs, unless it filed a proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(2) 23 under the Act. Therefore, the provisions of proposed Rules 5E and 8E described below, which permit the listing of ETPs, would not be effective until the Exchange files a proposed rule change to amend its rules to comply with Rules 10A-3 and 10C-1 under the Act and to incorporate qualitative listing criteria, and such proposed rule change is approved by the Commission. This would require the Exchange to adopt rules relating to the independence of compensation committees and their advisors.24

    23 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    24 On June 20, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 10C-1 to implement Section 10C of the Act, as added by Section 952 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Rule 10C-1 under the Act directs each national securities exchange to prohibit the listing of any equity security of an issuer, with certain exceptions, that does not comply with the rule's requirements regarding compensation committees of listed issuers and related requirements regarding compensation advisers. See, CFR 240.10C-1; Securities Act Release No. 9199, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64149 (March 30, 2011), 76 FR 18966 (April 6, 2011) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67220 (June 20, 2012), 77 FR 38422 (June 27, 2012).

    UTP of Exchange Traded Products

    The Exchange proposes Rule 5.1E(a)(2) to specifically govern trading of ETPs pursuant to UTP. Specifically, the requirements in subparagraphs (A)-(F) of proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2) would apply to ETPs traded pursuant to UTP on the Exchange.

    Under proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(A), the Exchange would file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission with respect to each ETP 25 the Exchange trades pursuant to UTP within five days after commencement of trading.

    25 Although Rule 19b-4(e) of the Act defines any type of option, warrant, hybrid securities product or any other security, other than a single equity option or a security futures product, whose value is based, in whole or in part, upon the performance of, or interest in, an underlying instrument, as a “new derivative securities product,” the Exchange prefers to refer to these types of products that it will be trading as “exchange traded products,” so as not to confuse investors with a term that can be deemed to imply such products are futures or options related.

    In addition, proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(B) would provide that the Exchange will distribute an information circular prior to the commencement of trading in such an ETP that generally would include the same information as the information circular provided by the listing exchange, including (a) the special risks of trading the ETP, (b) the Exchange's rules that will apply to the ETP, including Rules 2090-Equities and 2111-Equities,26 and (c) information about the dissemination of value of the underlying assets or indices.

    26See, Rule 2090-Equities (the Exchange's Know Your Customer Rule) and Rule 2111-Equities (the Exchange's Suitability Rule). See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78106 (June 20, 2016), 81 FR 41364 (June 24, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-59).

    Under proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(D), the Exchange would halt trading in a UTP Exchange Traded Product in certain circumstances. Specifically, if a temporary interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination of the intraday indicative value (or similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument and the listing market halts trading in the product, the Exchange, upon notification by the listing market of such halt due to such temporary interruption, also would immediately halt trading in that product on the Exchange. If the intraday indicative value (or similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument continues not to be calculated or widely available as of the commencement of trading on the Exchange on the next business day, the Exchange would not commence trading of the product that day. If an interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of the intraday indicative value (or similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument continues, the Exchange could resume trading in the product only if calculation and wide dissemination of the intraday indicative value (or similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument resumes or trading in such series resumes in the listing market. The Exchange also would halt trading in a UTP Exchange Traded Product listed on the Exchange for which a net asset value (and in the case of managed fund shares or actively managed exchange-traded funds, a “disclosed portfolio”) is disseminated if the Exchange became aware that the net asset value or, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio was not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange would maintain the trading halt until such time as the Exchange became aware that the net asset value and, if applicable, the disclosed portfolio was available to all market participants.

    Finally, the Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures for ETPs traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP would be similar to the procedures used for equity securities traded on the Exchange and would incorporate and rely upon existing Exchange surveillance systems.

    Proposed Rules 5.1E(a)(2)(C) and (E) would establish the following requirements for ETP Holders that have customers that trade UTP Exchange Traded Products:

    Prospectus Delivery Requirements. Proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(C)(i) would remind ETP Holders that they are subject to the prospectus delivery requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), unless the ETP is the subject of an order by the Commission exempting the product from certain prospectus delivery requirements under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), and the product is not otherwise subject to prospectus delivery requirements under the Securities Act. ETP Holders would also be required to provide a prospectus to a customer requesting a prospectus.27

    27 Proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(C)(iii).

    Written Description of Terms and Conditions. Proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(2)(C)(ii) would require ETP Holders to provide a written description of the terms and characteristics of UTP Exchange Traded Products to purchasers of such securities, not later than the time of confirmation of the first transaction, and with any sales materials relating to UTP Exchange Traded Products.

    Market Maker Restrictions. Proposed Rule 5.1E(a)(E) would establish certain restrictions for any ETP Holder registered as a market maker in an ETP that derives its value from one or more currencies, commodities, or derivatives based on one or more currencies or commodities, or is based on a basket or index composed of currencies or commodities (collectively, “Reference Assets”). Specifically, such an ETP Holder must file with the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading the underlying physical asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives, which the ETP Holder acting as registered market maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion.28 If an account in which an ETP Holder acting as a registered market maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, has not been reported to the Exchange as required by this Rule, an ETP Holder acting as registered market maker in the ETP would be permitted to trade in the underlying physical asset or commodity, related futures or options on futures, or any other related derivatives. Finally, a market maker could not use any material nonpublic information in connection with trading a related instrument.

    28 The proposed rule would also, more specifically, require a market maker to file with the Exchange and keep current a list identifying any accounts (“Related Instrument Trading Accounts”) for which related instruments are traded (1) in which the market maker holds an interest, (2) over which it has investment discretion, or (3) in which it shares in the profits and/or losses. In addition, a market maker would not be permitted to have an interest in, exercise investment discretion over, or share in the profits and/or losses of a Related Instrument Trading Account that has not been reported to the Exchange as required by the proposed rule.

    Proposed Requirements for Exchange Traded Products Definitions & Terms of Use

    The Exchange proposes to define the term “exchange traded product” in Rule 1.1E(bbb). Proposed Rule 1.1E(bbb) would define the term “Exchange Traded Product” to mean a security that meets the definition of “derivative securities product” in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and a “UTP Exchange Traded Product” to mean an Exchange Traded Product that trades on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges.29 The Exchange proposes to use the term Exchange Traded Product instead of “derivative securities product,” because it believes that the term “Exchange Traded Product” more accurately describes the types of products the Exchange proposes to trade and is less likely to confuse investors by using a term that implies such products are futures or options related.

    29 This proposed definition is identical to the definition of “Derivative Securities Product” in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(bbb).

    Next, the Exchange proposes to add the definitions contained in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(b) that are relevant to the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of the ETPs that the Exchange proposes in this filing, which are described below. To maintain consistency in rule references between the Exchange's proposed rules and NYSE Arca Equities' rules, the Exchange proposes to Reserve subparagraphs to the extent it is not now proposing certain definitions from NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(b).30 Other than a non-substantive difference to use the term “Exchange” instead of “Corporation, “NYSE Arca Marketplace,” or “NYSE Arca Parent,” the terms defined in this proposed Rule 5.1E(b) would have the identical meanings to the terms used in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(b).

    30 The Exchange is proposing to Reserve paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(7), (b)(8), (b)(10), (b)(17) and (b)(19) of proposed Rule 5.1E(b), because the terms used in the parallel provisions of the NYSE Arca Equities rules would not be used in the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of the ETPs that the Exchange is proposing in this filing.

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make the following substitutions in its proposed rules for terms used in the NYSE Arca Equities ETP listing and trading rules (collectively, the “General Definitional Term Changes”):

    • Because the Exchange uses the term “Supplementary Material” to refer to commentaries to its Rules, the Exchange proposes to substitute this term where “Commentary” is used in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities;

    • Because the Exchange tends to use the term “will” to impose obligations or duties on its members and ETP Holders, the Exchange proposes to substitute this term where “shall” is used in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities;

    • The Exchange proposes to use the term “ETP Holder” 31 instead of “member organization,” as defined in Rule 2-Equities, because member organizations would be required to hold an Equity Trading Permit issued by the Exchange to effect transactions on the Exchange's Pillar platform;

    31 The Exchange plans to file additional proposed rule changes under Rule 19b-4 of the Act to implement the Pillar platform on the Exchange. These additional proposed rule changes would define the terms “ETP Holder” and “Market Maker” as they would be used on the Exchange's Pillar platform and specify the requirements for obtaining an Equity Trading Permit.

    • The Exchange proposes to use the term “Exchange” 32 instead of “Corporation, “NYSE Arca Marketplace,” or “NYSE Arca Parent;”

    32 Under Rule 1E, the term “the Exchange,” when used with reference to the administration of any rule, means the NYSE MKT LLC or the officer, employee, person, entity or committee to whom appropriate authority to administer such rule has been delegated by the Exchange.

    • Because the Exchange's hours for business are described in Rule 51-Equities and the Exchange's rules do not use a defined term to refer to such hours, the Exchange is proposing to refer to its core trading hours as the “Exchange's normal trading hours,” and substitute this phrase for “Core Trading Session” and “Core Trading Hours,” as defined in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities;

    • Because the Exchange's rules pertaining to trading halts due to extraordinary market volatility on the Pillar platform are described in Rule 7.12E, the Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 7.12E in its proposed rules wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 33 is referenced in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities proposed in this filing;

    33 Exchange Rule 7.12E is substantially identical to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12, which pertains to Trading Halts Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility.

    • Because the Exchange's rules pertaining to the mechanics of the limit-up-limit down plan as it relates to trading pauses in individual securities due to extraordinary market volatility are described in Rule 80C-Equities, the Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 80C-Equities in its proposed rules wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11 34 is referenced in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities proposed in this filing;

    34 Exchange Rule 80C-Equities is substantially identical to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11, which pertains to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Pauses In Individual Securities Due to Extraordinary Market Volatility.

    • Because NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18 35 establishes the requirements for trading halts in securities traded on the Pillar trading platform, and the Exchange is proposing new Rule 7.18E in this filing, based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18, the Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 7.18E in its proposed rules wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 [sic] is referenced in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities proposed in this filing; and

    35See supra note 19.

    • Because the Exchange's rules regarding the production of books and records are described in Rule 440-Equities, the Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 440-Equities in its proposed rules wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.4 36 is referenced in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities proposed in this filing.

    36 In addition to the existing obligations under the rules of NYSE Arca Equities regarding the production of books and records, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 4.4 provides restrictions on ETP Holder activities pertaining to books and records.

    Rules for the Trading Pursuant to UTP of ETPs

    The Exchange would have to file a Form 19b-4(e) with the Commission to trade these ETPs pursuant to UTP. The Exchange is proposing substantially identical rules to those of NYSE Arca Equities for the qualification, listing and delisting of companies on the Exchange applicable to the ETPs.37

    37 Each proposed NYSE Rule corresponds to the same rule number as the NYSE Arca Equities rules with which it conforms.

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to include additional continued listing standards in the proposed rules for the trading pursuant to UTP, as well as clarify the procedures it will undertake when an ETP is noncompliant with applicable rules. These proposed rules are being made in concert with discussions with the SEC. Staff (“Staff”) of the SEC's Division of Trading and Markets (“T&M”) requested that the Exchange adopt certain additional continued listing standards for trading ETPs pursuant to UTP.

    As a result, the proposed rules for the trading pursuant to UTP reflect the guidance provided by T&M Staff to clarify that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange rule filings under SEC Rule 19b-4 to trade ETPs pursuant to UTP (“Exchange Rule Filings”), are also considered continued listing standards. The Exchange Rule Filing representations that will also be required to be maintained on a continuous basis include (a) the description of the fund and (b) the fund's investment restrictions.

    The proposed rules require that ETPs traded pursuant to UTP on the Exchange without an Exchange Rule Filing must maintain the initial index or reference asset criteria on a continued basis. For example, in the case of a domestic equity index, these criteria generally include: (a) Stocks with 90% of the weight of the index must have a minimum market value of at least $75 million; (b) stocks with 70% of the weight of the index must have a minimum monthly trading volume of at least 250,000 shares; (c) the most heavily weighted component cannot exceed 30% of the weight of the index, and the five most heavily weighted stocks cannot exceed 65%; (d) there must be at least 13 stocks in the index; and (e) all securities in the index must be listed in the U.S. There are similar criteria for international indexes, fixed-income indexes and indexes with a combination of components.

    If an Exchange Rule Filing is made to trade a specific ETP pursuant to UTP, the proposed rules require that the issuer of the security comply on a continuing basis with any statements or representations contained in the applicable rule proposal, including (a) the description of the portfolio and (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets. The ETP rules will also be modified to require that issuers of securities traded pursuant to UTP under proposed Rules 5E and 8E must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance. In addition, ETPs traded pursuant to UTP will be subject to certain delisting procedures in proposed Rule 5.5E(m), and the other Exchange rules will make this explicit.

    Proposed Rule 5E—Securities Traded

    The Exchange proposes to add introductory language under the main heading of proposed Rule 5E, which states that the provisions of proposed Rule 5E would apply only to the trading pursuant to UTP of ETPs, and would not apply to the listing of ETPs on the Exchange. The Exchange is proposing this language to clarify that the rules incorporated in proposed Rule 5E should not be interpreted to be listing requirements of the Exchange, but rather, requirements that pertain solely to the trading of ETPs pursuant to UTP on the Pillar platform.

    The Exchange proposes to add Rules 5.2E(j)(2)-(j)(7), which would be substantially identical to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(2)-(j)(7). These proposed rules would permit the Exchange to trade pursuant to UTP the following:

    • Equity Linked Notes that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(2);

    • Investment Company Units that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(3);

    • Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(4);

    • Equity Gold Shares that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(5);

    • Equity Index Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, Currency-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, and Multifactor Index-Linked Securities that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(6); and

    • Trust Certificates that meet the rules for the trading pursuant to UTP that are contained in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(7).

    The text of these proposed rules is identical to NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(j)(2)-5.2(j)(7), other than certain non-substantive and technical differences explained below.

    The Exchange proposes to Reserve paragraphs 5.2E(a)-(i) 38 and (j)(1),39 to maintain the same rule numbers as the NYSE Arca rules with which it conforms.

    38 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(a) pertains to applications for admitting securities to list on NYSE Arca and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(b) pertains to NYSE Arca's unique two-tier listing structure. As these rules pertain to specific listing criteria for NYSE Arca and not trading ETPs pursuant to UTP, the Exchange is not proposing similar rules. Because NYSE Arca Equities Rules 5.2(c)-(g) relate to listing standards for securities that are not ETPs, the Exchange's listing rules contained in the NYSE MKT Company Guide would apply and it is not proposing rule changes related to such securities. Finally, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(h) pertains to Unit Investment Trusts (“UITs”). The Exchange proposes to trade any UITs pursuant to UTP under proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(3) (Investment Company Units) or proposed Rule 8.100E (Portfolio Depository Receipts).

    39 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) pertains to “Other Securities” that are not otherwise covered by the requirements contained in the other listing rules of NYSE Arca Equities. As the Exchange is proposing only the rules that are necessary for the Exchange to trade ETPs pursuant to UTP, the Exchange is not proposing a rule comparable to NYSE Arca Equities 5.2(j)(1).

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(2)—Equity Linked Notes (“ELNs”)

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(2) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of ELNs, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2).40

    40See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2). See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50319 (September 7, 2004), 69 FR 55204 (September 13, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-75); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56924 (December 7, 2007), 72 FR 70918 (December 13, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-98); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58745 (October 7, 2008), 73 FR 60745 (October 14, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-94).

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(3)—Investment Company Units

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(3) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of investment company units, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3).41

    41See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40603 (November 3, 1998), 63 FR 59354 (November 3, 1998) (SR-PCX-98-29).

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(4)—Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(4) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of index-linked exchangeable notes, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive changes between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4): 42

    42See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4). See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49532 (April 7, 2004), 69 FR 19593 (April 13, 2004) (SR-PCX-2004-01).

    • To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4), an index-linked exchangeable note and its issuer must meet the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) (Other Securities), except that the minimum public distribution will be 150,000 notes with a minimum of 400 public note-holders, except, if traded in thousand dollar denominations then there is no minimum public distribution and number of holders.

    Because the Exchange does not have and is not proposing a rule for “Other Securities” comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.2(j)(1), the Exchange proposes to reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(j)(1) in subparagraphs (a) and (c) of proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(4) in establishing the criteria that an issuer and issue must satisfy.43

    43 The Exchange will monitor for any changes to the rules of NYSE Arca, and will amend its rules accordingly to conform to the rules of NYSE Arca. The Exchange notes that it is proposing to cross-reference to the rules of an affiliate of the Exchange, which will facilitate monitoring for changes to such rules.

    • To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4), an index to which an exchangeable note is linked and its underlying securities must meet (i) the procedures in NYSE Arca Options Rules 5.13(b)-(c); or (ii) the criteria set forth in subsections (C) and (D) of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(2), the index concentration limits set forth in NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.13(b)(6), and Rule 5.13(b)(12) insofar as it relates to Rule 5.13(b)(6). Because the Exchange's rules for listing of index option contracts are described in Rule 901C, the Exchange is proposing to refer to Rule 901C wherever NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.13 44 is referenced in paragraph (d) of proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(4). The Exchange would apply the criteria set forth in Rule 901C in determining whether an index underlying an index-linked exchangeable note satisfies the requirements of Rule 5.2E(j)(4)(d).

    44 Commentary .03 to Exchange Rule 901C is substantially identical to NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.13, and sets forth criteria for narrow-based and micro narrow-based indexes on which an options contract may be listed without filing a proposed rule change under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.

    • Correction of a typographical error in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(f)((iii), so that proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(4)(f)((iii) reads “further dealings on the Exchange,” rather than “further dealings of the Exchange,” as is currently drafted in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(4)(f)(iii).

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(5)—Equity Gold Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(5) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of equity gold shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(5).45

    45See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(5); See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51245 (February 23, 2005), 70 FR 10731 (March 4, 2005) (SR-PCX-2004-117).

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(6)—Index-Linked Securities

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(6) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of equity index-linked securities, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive changes between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6): 46

    46See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6); See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54231 (July 27, 2006), 71 FR 44339 (August 4, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-19); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59332 (January 30, 2009), 74 FR 6338 (February 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-136); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52204 (August 3, 2005), 70 FR 46559 (August 10, 2005) (SR-PCX-2005-63).

    • To qualify for listing and trading under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6), both the issue and issuer of an index-linked security must meet the criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(1) (Other Securities), with certain specified exceptions. Because the Exchange does not have and is not proposing a rule for “Other Securities” comparable to NYSE Arca Rule 5.1(j)(1), the Exchange proposes to reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.1(j)(1) in proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(6)(A)(a) establishing the criteria that an issue and issuer must satisfy.47

    47See supra note 43.

    • The listing standards for Equity Index-Linked Securities in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(6) reference NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.3 in describing the criteria for securities that compose 90% of an index's numerical value and at least 80% of the total number of components. Because the Exchange's rules for establishing the criteria for underlying securities of put and call options contracts is described in Rule 915, the Exchange proposes to reference to Rule 915 48 wherever NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.3 is referenced in paragraph (B)(I)(1)(b)(2)(iv) of proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(6), to establish the initial listing criteria that an index must meet to trade pursuant to UTP.

    48 Rule 915 is substantially identical to NYSE Arca Options Rule 5.3, and establishes the criteria for underlying securities of put and call option contracts listed on the exchange.

    Proposed Rule 5.2E(j)(7)—Trust Certificates

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 5.2E(j)(7) to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of trust certificates, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive change between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(7): 49

    49See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(7); See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59051 (December 4, 2008), 73 FR 75155 (December 10, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-123); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58920 (November 7, 2008), 73 FR 68479 (November 18, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-123).

    • Commentary .08 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(7) contains a cross-reference to NYSE Arca Rule 9.2.50 Because the Exchange does not currently have and is not proposing to add rules that pertain to the opening of accounts that are approved for options trading, the Exchange proposes to require an ETP Holder to ensure that the account of a holder of a Trust Certificate that is exchangeable, at the holder's option, into securities that participate in the return of the applicable underlying asset is approved for options trading in accordance with the rules of a national securities exchange.

    50 Commentary .08 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(7) states that Trust Certificates may be exchangeable at the option of the holder into securities that participate in the return of the applicable underlying asset. In the event that the Trust Certificates are exchangeable at the option of the ETP Holder and contains an Index Warrant, then the ETP Holder must ensure that the ETP Holder's account is approved in accordance with Rule 9.2 in order to exercise such rights.

    Proposed Rule 8E—Trading of Certain Exchange Traded Products

    The Exchange proposes to add introductory language under the main heading of proposed Rule 8E, which states that the provisions of proposed Rule 8E would apply only to the trading pursuant to UTP of ETPs, and would not apply to the listing of ETPs on the Exchange. The Exchange is proposing this language to clarify that the rules incorporated in proposed Rule 8E should not be interpreted to be listing requirements of the Exchange, but rather, requirements that pertain solely to the trading of ETPs pursuant to UTP on the Pillar platform.

    The Exchange proposes to add Rule 8E, which would be substantially identical to Sections 1 and 2 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8. These proposed rules would permit the Exchange to trade pursuant to UTP the following: Currency and Index Warrants, Portfolio Depositary Receipts, Trust Issued Receipts, Commodity-Based Trust Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Index Trust Shares, Commodity Futures Trust Shares, Partnership Units, Paired Trust Shares, Trust Units, Managed Fund Shares, and Managed Trust Securities.51

    51 The Exchange is only proposing listing and trading rules necessary to trade ETPs pursuant to UTP. Accordingly, the Exchange is not proposing a rule comparable to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100(g).

    The Exchange proposes to Reserve Rule 8.100E(g), to maintain the same rule numbers as the NYSE Arca rules with which it conforms.

    The text of proposed Rule 8E is identical to Sections 1 and 2 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8, other than certain non-substantive and technical differences explained below. The Exchange also proposes that all of the General Definitional Term Changes described under proposed Rule 5E above would also apply to proposed Rule 8E.

    Proposed Rules 8.1E-8.13E—Currency and Index Warrants

    The Exchange is proposing Rules 8.1E-8.13E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP (including sales-practice rules such as those relating to suitability and supervision of accounts) of currency and index warrants, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.52

    52 NYSE Arca Equities Rules 8.1-8.13 all pertain to the listing and trading requirements (including sales-practice rules such as those relating to suitability and supervision of accounts) for Currency and Index Warrants. See, Section 1 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR 55225 (November 1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25); 59886 (May 7, 2009), 74 FR 22779 (May 14, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-39).

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive changes between these proposed rules and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 8.1-8.13 (Currency and Index Warrants):

    Proposed Rule 8.1E—General

    • Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.1.

    Proposed Rule 8.2E—Definitions

    • Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.2.

    Proposed Rule 8.3E—Listing of Currency and Index Warrants

    • NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.3 references NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(c) to establish the earnings requirements that a warrant issuer is required to substantially exceed. Because the Exchange does not currently have and is not proposing a rule similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(c), the Exchange proposes to include the earnings requirements set forth in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(c) in subparagraph (a) of proposed Rule 8.3E.

    Proposed Rule 8.4E—Account Approval

    • The account approval rules of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.4 reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(b) in describing the criteria that must be met for opening up a customer account for options trading. Because the Exchange's account approval rules are described in Rule 921,53 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 921 wherever NYSE Arca Rule 9.18(b) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.4E.

    53 Rule 921 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(b), and establishes criteria that must be met to open up a customer account for options trading.

    Proposed Rule 8.5E—Suitability

    • The account suitability rules of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.5 reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(c) in describing rules that apply to recommendations made in stock index, currency index and currency warrants. Because the Exchange's account suitability rules are described in Rule 923,54 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 923 wherever NYSE Arca Rule 9.18(c) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.5E.

    54 Rule 923 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(c), and establishes suitability rules that pertain to recommendations in stock index, currency index and currency warrants.

    Proposed Rule 8.6E—Discretionary Accounts

    • The rules of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.6 reference the fact that NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.6(a) will not apply to customer accounts insofar as they may relate to discretion to trade in stock index, currency index and currency warrants, and that NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(e) will apply to such discretionary accounts instead. Because the Exchange's discretionary account rules for equity trading are described in Rule 408-Equities,55 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 408-Equities wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.6(a) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.6E. Because the Exchange's discretionary account rules for options trading are described in Rule 924,56 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 924 wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(e) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.6E.

    55 Rule 408-Equities is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.6(a), and pertains to the rules of the Exchange with regard to discretionary power in customer accounts for equity trading.

    56 Rule 924 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(e), and establishes rules pertaining to discretion as to customer accounts for options trading.

    Proposed Rule 8.7E—Supervision of Accounts

    • The account supervision rules of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.7 reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(d) in describing rules that apply to the supervision of customer accounts in which transactions in stock index, currency index or currency warrants are effected. Because the Exchange's rules that apply to the supervision of customer accounts of such nature are described in Rule 922,57 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 922 wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(d) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.7E.

    57 Rule 922 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(d), and establishes account supervision rules that apply to the supervision of customer accounts in which transactions in stock index, currency index and currency warrants are effected.

    Proposed Rule 8.8E—Customer Complaints

    • The customer complaint rules of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.8 reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(l) in describing rules that apply to customer complaints received regarding stock index, currency index or currency warrants. Because the Exchange's rules that govern doing a public business in options are described in Rule 932,58 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 932 wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(l) is referenced in proposed Rule 8.8E.

    58 Rule 932 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.18(l), and establishes rules that apply to customer complaints received regarding stock index, currency index or currency warrants.

    Proposed Rule 8.9E—Prior Approval of Certain Communications to Customers

    • The rules pertaining to communications to customers regarding stock index, currency index and currency warrants described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.9 reference NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.28. Because the Exchange's rules that govern advertisements, market letters and sales literature relating to options are described in Rule 991,59 the Exchange would cross-reference to Rule 991 wherever NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.28 is referenced in proposed Rule 8.9E.

    59 Rule 991 is substantially similar to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.28, and establishes rules regarding advertisements, sales literature and educational material issued to any customer or member of the public pertaining to stock index, currency index or currency warrants.

    Proposed Rule 8.10E—Position Limits

    • Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.10.

    Proposed Rule 8.11E—Exercise Limits

    • Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.11.

    Proposed Rule 8.12E—Trading Halts or Suspensions

    • Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.12.

    Proposed Rule 8.13E—Reporting of Warrant Positions

    • The Exchange proposes to correct a typographical error in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.13. Proposed Rule 8.13E would read “whenever a report shall be required to be filed with respect to an account pursuant to this Rule, the ETP Holder filing the report shall file with the Exchange such additional periodic reports with respect to such account as the Exchange may from time to time prescribe,” rather than “whenever a report shall be required to be filed with respect to an account pursuant to this Rule, the ETP Holder filing the same file with the Exchange such additional periodic reports with respect to such account as the Exchange may from time to time prescribe,” as in current NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.13.

    Proposed Rule 8.100E—Portfolio Depositary Receipts

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.100E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of portfolio depositary receipts, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100.60

    60See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39461 (December 17, 1997), 62 FR 67674 (December 29, 1997) (SR-PCX-97-35); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39188 (October 2, 1997), 62 FR 53373 (October 14, 1997) (SR-PCX-97-35); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44551 (July 12, 2001), 66 FR 37716 (July 19, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-14).

    Proposed Rule 8.200E—Trust Issued Receipts

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.200E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of trust issued receipts, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200.61

    61See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.200; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58162 (July 15, 2008), 73 FR 42391 (July 21, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-73); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44182 (April 16, 2001), 66 FR 21798 (April 16, 2001) (SR-PCX-2001-01).

    Proposed Rule 8.201E—Commodity-Based Trust Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.201E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of commodity-based trust shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201.62

    62See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51067 (January 21, 2005), 70 FR 3952 (January 27, 2005) (SR-PCX-2004-132).

    Proposed Rule 8.202E—Currency Trust Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.202E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of currency trust shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202.63

    63See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.202; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60065 (June 8, 2009), 74 FR 28310 (June 15, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-47); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53253 (February 8, 2006), 71 FR 8029 (February 15, 2006) (SR-PCX-2005-123).

    Proposed Rule 8.203E—Commodity Index Trust Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.203E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of commodity index trust shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive change between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.203: 64

    64See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.203; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54025 (June 21, 2006), 71 FR 36856 (June 28, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-12).

    • Correction of a typographical error in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.203(d), so that proposed Rule 8.203E(d) reads “one or more” in the first sentence, rather than “one more more,” as is currently drafted in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.203(d).

    Proposed Rule 8.204E—Commodity Futures Trust Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.204E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of commodity futures trust shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.204.65

    65See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.204; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57838 (May 20, 2008), 73 FR 30649 (May 28, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-09); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57636 (April 8, 2008), 73 FR 20344 (April 15, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-09).

    Proposed Rule 8.300E—Partnership Units

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.300E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of partnership units, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.300.66

    66See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.300; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53875 (May 25, 2006), 71 FR 32164 (January 2, 2006) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-11).

    Proposed Rule 8.400E—Paired Trust Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.400E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of paired trust shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive change between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.400: 67

    67See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.400; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55033 (December 29, 2006), 72 FR 1253 (January 10, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-75); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58312 (August 5, 2008), 73 FR 46689 (August 11, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-63).

    • To be consistent with the Exchange's definitions proposed in Rule 5.1E(b), the Exchange proposes to substitute the terms “security” and “equity securities” (as such terms are defined in proposed Rule 5.1E(b) 68 ) in subparagraph (a) of proposed Rule 8.400E 69 instead of the terms “security,” “securities” and “derivative products” (as used in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities) to refer to the definition of Paired Trust Shares. The Exchange proposes this change because it believes it is more accurate to refer to paired trust shares as securities and equity securities.

    68 Proposed Rule 5.1E(b) defines the term “security” to mean any security as defined in Rule 3(a)(10) under the Act and the term “equity security” to include any equity security defined as such pursuant to Rule 3a11-1 under the Act.

    69 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.400(a) reads as follows: “(a) Applicability. The provisions in this Rule are applicable only to Paired Trust Shares. In addition, except to the extent inconsistent with this Rule, or unless the context otherwise requires, the rules and procedures of the Board of Directors shall be applicable to the trading on the Corporation of such securities. Paired Trust Shares are included within the definition of “security,” “securities” and “derivative products” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Corporation.”

    Proposed Rule 8.500E—Trust Units

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.500E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of trust units, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    In addition to the General Definitional Term Changes described above, the Exchange is proposing the following non-substantive change between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500: 70

    70See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57059 (December 28, 2007), 73 FR 909 (January 4, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-76); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63129 (October 19, 2010), 75 FR 65539 (October 25, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-91).

    • To be consistent with the Exchange's definitions proposed in Rule 5.1E(b), the Exchange proposes to substitute the terms “security” and “equity securities” (as such terms are defined in proposed Rule 5.1E(b) 71 ) in subparagraph (a) of proposed Rule 8.500E 72 instead of the terms “security,” “securities” and “derivative products” (as used in the rules of NYSE Arca Equities) to refer to the definition of Trust Units. The Exchange proposes this change because it believes it is more accurate to refer to trust units as securities and equity securities.

    71See supra note 74 [sic].

    72 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.500(a) reads as follows: “(a) Applicability. The provisions in this Rule are applicable only to Trust Units. In addition, except to the extent inconsistent with this Rule, or unless the context otherwise requires, the rules and procedures of the Board of Directors shall be applicable to the trading on the Corporation of such securities. Trust Units are included within the definition of “security,” “securities” and “derivative products” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Corporation.”

    Proposed Rule 8.600E—Managed Fund Shares

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.600E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of managed fund shares, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600.73

    73See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57395 (February 28, 2008), 73 FR 11974 (March 5, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-25); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57619 (April 4, 2008), 73 FR 19544 (April 10, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-25).

    Proposed Rule 8.700E—Managed Trust Securities

    The Exchange is proposing Rule 8.700E to provide rules for the trading pursuant to UTP of managed trust securities, so that they may be traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.

    Other than with respect to the General Definitional Term Changes described above under proposed Rule 5E, there are no differences between this proposed rule and NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.700.74

    74See, NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.700; See, also, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60064 (June 8, 2009), 74 FR 28315 (June 15, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-30); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59835 (April 28, 2009), 74 FR 21041 (May 6, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-30).

    Proposed Rule 7.18E—Requirements for Halts on Pillar Platform

    In conjunction with the implementation of the Pillar trading platform for trading of securities pursuant to UTP, the Exchange proposes new Rule 7.18E, under Rule 7E, which would govern trading halts in symbols trading on the Pillar platform.

    Other than with respect to the proposed General Definitional Term Changes described above, there are no differences between proposed Rules 7.18E(a)-(d)(1) and NYSE Arca Equities Rules 7.18(a)-(d)(1). The Exchange does not propose rules based on NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18(d)(2) because the Exchange would not be a listing venue under Rules 5E and 8E.

    Finally, proposed Rules 7.18E would use the terms and definitions that were added in the Pillar Framework Filing and proposed as new Rules 1.1E(aaa) and (bbb), described above. The Exchange also proposes to define the term “UTP regulatory halt” in Rule 1.1E(kk).75 Proposed Rule 1.1E(kk) would define the term “UTP Regulatory Halt” to mean a trade suspension, halt, or pause called by the UTP Listing Market 76 in a UTP Security 77 that requires all market centers to halt trading in that security.78

    75 The Pillar Framework Filing added Rule 1.1E(kk) on a “reserved” basis.

    76See, proposed Rule 1.1E(jj).

    77See, proposed Rule 1.1E(ii).

    78 This proposed definition is identical to the definition of “UTP Regulatory Halt” in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1(kk).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,79 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,80 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest by providing for the trading of securities, including UTP Exchange Traded Products, on the Exchange pursuant to UTP, subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would contribute to the protection of investors and the public interest because it may provide a better trading environment for investors and, generally, encourage greater competition between markets.

    79 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    80 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change also supports the principals of Section 11A(a)(1) 81 of the Act in that it seeks to ensure the economically efficient execution of securities transactions and fair competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The proposed rule change also supports the principles of Section 12(f) of the Act, which govern the trading of securities pursuant to a grant of unlisted trading privileges consistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors and the public interest, and the impact of extending the existing markets for such securities.

    81 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with these principles. By providing for the trading of securities on the Exchange on a UTP basis, the Exchange believes its proposal will lead to the addition of liquidity to the broader market for these securities and to increased competition among the existing group of liquidity providers. The Exchange also believes that, by so doing, the proposed rule change would encourage the additional utilization of, and interaction with, the exchange market, and provide market participants with improved price discovery, increased liquidity, more competitive quotes and greater price improvement for securities traded pursuant to UTP.

    The Exchange further believes that enhancing liquidity by trading securities on a UTP basis would help raise investors' confidence in the fairness of the market, generally, and their transactions in particular. As such, the general UTP trading rule would foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating securities transactions, enhance the mechanism of a free and open market, and promote fair and orderly markets in securities on the Exchange.

    In addition, the trading criteria set forth in proposed Rule 5.1E(a) is intended to protect investors and the public interest. The requirements for trading securities pursuant to UTP, as proposed herein in a single, consolidated Rule 5.1E(a), are at least as stringent as those of any other national securities exchange and, specifically, are based on the consolidated rules for trading UTP securities established by other national securities exchanges.82 Consequently, the proposed rule change is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Additionally, the proposal is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, as trading pursuant to UTP is subject to existing Exchange trading rules, together with specific requirements for registered market makers, books and record production, surveillance procedures, suitability and prospectus requirements, and requisite the Exchange approvals, all set forth above.

    82See NSX Rule 15.9 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57448 (March 6,2008), 73 FR 13597 (March 13, 2008) (SR-NSX-2008-05); Phlx Rule 803(o) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57806 (May 9, 2008), 73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx2008-34); ISE Rule 2101 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57387 (February 27, 2008), 73 FR 11965 (March 5, 2008) (SR-ISE-2007-99).

    The proposed rule changes accomplish these objectives by enhancing Exchange rules by clarifying that most initial listing standards, as well as certain representations included in Exchange Rule Filings to list an ETP, are considered continued listing standards. Additionally, the ETP rules will also require that issuers of securities listed under proposed Rules 5E and 8E must notify the Exchange regarding instances of non-compliance and to clarify that deficiencies will be subject to the delisting process in proposed Rule 5.5E(m). The Exchange believes that these proposed rules will enhance the Exchange's rules, thereby serving to improve the national market system and protect investors and the public interest.

    The proposal is also designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade by way of initial and continued listing standards which, if not maintained, will result in the discontinuation of trading in the affected products. These requirements, together with the applicable Exchange trading rules (which apply to the proposed products), ensure that no investor would have an unfair advantage over another respecting the trading of the subject products. On the contrary, all investors will have the same access to, and use of, information concerning the specific products and trading in the specific products, all to the benefit of public customers and the marketplace as a whole.

    The proposal is intended to ensure that investors receive up-to-date information on the value of certain underlying securities and indices in the products in which they invest, and protect investors and the public interest, enabling investors to: (i) Respond quickly to market changes through intra-day trading opportunities; (ii) engage in hedging strategies; and (iii) reduce transaction costs for trading a group or index of securities.

    Furthermore, the proposal is designed to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by adopting rules that will lead ultimately to the trading pursuant to UTP of the proposed new products on the Exchange, just as they are currently traded on other exchanges. The proposed changes do nothing more than match Exchange rules with what is currently available on other exchanges. The Exchange believes that by conforming its rules and allowing trading opportunities on the Exchange that are already allowed by rule on another market, the proposal would offer another venue for trading Exchange Traded Products and thereby promote broader competition among exchanges. The Exchange believes that individuals and entities permitted to make markets on the Exchange in the proposed new products should enhance competition within the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and customers and other investors in the national market system should benefit from more depth and liquidity in the market for the proposed new products.

    The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue, but rather to adopt new rules that are word-for-word identical to the rules of NYSE Arca (other than with respect to certain non-substantive and technical amendments described above), to support the Exchange's new Pillar trading platform. As discussed in detail above, with this rule filing, the Exchange is not proposing to change its core functionality, but rather to adopt a rule numbering framework and rules based on the rules of NYSE Arca. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote consistent use of terminology to support the Pillar trading platform on both the Exchange and its affiliate, NYSE Arca, thus making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate.

    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. To the contrary, the current variances between the Exchange's rules for the trading pursuant to UTP and the rules of other exchanges limit competition in that there are certain products that the Exchange cannot trade pursuant to UTP, while other exchanges can trade such products. Thus, approval of the proposed rule change will promote competition because it will allow the Exchange to compete with other national securities exchanges for the trading of securities pursuant to UTP.

    The Exchange believes that proposed Rules 5E and 8E and the related notification requirements will have no impact on competition. Furthermore, since T&M Staff has provided the same guidance regarding ETP continued listing requirements to all exchanges, the Exchange believes that there will be no effect 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. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, the other provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which are set forth above, and the specific requests for comment set forth in the Order Instituting Proceedings.83 Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    83See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 7, at 12252.

    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-2016-103 in 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-NYSEMKT-2016-103. This file number should be included in 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 will also 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-2016-103 and should be submitted on or before May 12, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.84

    84 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08460 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80503; File No. SR-ICC-2017-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Relating to Clearance of Additional Credit Default Swap Contracts April 21, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,1 and Rule 19b-4,2 notice is hereby given that on April 7, 2017, ICE Clear Credit LLC (“ICC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(4)(i) thereunder,4 so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4)(i).

    I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    The principal purpose of the proposed change is for ICC to provide for the clearance of clearing participant (“CP”) single name credit default swap contracts (“CDS”) referencing ICC clearing participants (“CP CDS Contracts”).

    II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

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

    A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice

    ICC plans to expand its product offering to include CP CDS Contracts. ICC believes the addition of these contracts will benefit the market for credit default swaps by providing market participants the benefits of clearing, including reduction in counterparty risk and safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. Clearing of the CP CDS Contracts will not require any changes to the ICC Clearing Rules, ICC's Risk Management Framework, ICC's Risk Management Model Description Document, or other policies and procedures constituting rules within the meaning of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).

    The CP CDS Contracts will be cleared pursuant to Subchapters 26B (Standard North American Corporate (“SNAC”) Single Name) and 26H (Standard European Financial Corporate (“STEFC”) Single Name) of the ICC Clearing Rules. Furthermore, the General Wrong Way Risk (“GWWR”) approach, set forth in the ICC Risk Management Model Description Document,5 will apply to the CP CDS Contracts. This treatment is consistent with ICC's current GWWR approach which applies to all products cleared by ICC within the Sovereign and Banking sectors, following the Bloomberg Industry Classification System (“BICS”), as the CP CDS Contracts are included in the Banking sector, as defined by the BICS.

    5 Such GWWR approach is described in rule filing SR-ICC-2015-009. The text of rule filing SR-ICC-2015-009 can be found on ICC's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 6 requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions and to comply with the provisions of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. The CP CDS Contracts will be cleared pursuant to ICC's existing clearing arrangements and related financial safeguards, protections and risk management procedures. Clearing of the CP CDS Contracts will allow market participants an increased ability to manage risk and ensure the safeguarding of margin assets pursuant to clearing house rules. ICC believes that acceptance of the CP CDS Contracts, on the terms and conditions set out in the Rules, is consistent with the prompt and accurate clearance of and settlement of securities transactions and derivative agreements, contracts and transactions cleared by ICC, the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or control of ICC, and the protection of investors and the public interest, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.7

    6 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    7 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    Clearing of the CP CDS Contracts will also satisfy the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.8 In particular, in terms of financial resources, ICC will apply its existing initial margin methodology to the additional contracts. ICC believes that this model will provide sufficient initial margin requirements to cover its credit exposure to its clearing members from clearing such contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(2).9 In addition, ICC believes its Guaranty Fund, under its existing methodology, will, together with the required initial margin, provide sufficient financial resources to support the clearing of the additional contracts consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(b)(3).10 ICC also believes that its existing operational and managerial resources will be sufficient for clearing of the additional contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(4),11 as the new contracts are substantially the same from an operational perspective as existing contracts. Similarly, ICC will use its existing settlement procedures and account structures for the new contracts, consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15) 12 as to the finality and accuracy of its daily settlement process and avoidance of the risk to ICC of settlement failures. ICC determined to accept the CP CDS Contracts for clearing in accordance with its governance process, which included review of the contracts and related risk management considerations by the ICC Risk Committee and its Board. These governance arrangements are consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(d)(8).13 Finally, ICC will apply its existing default management policies and procedures for the CP CDS Contracts. ICC believes that these procedures allow for it to take timely action to contain losses and liquidity pressures and to continue meeting its obligations in the event of clearing member insolvencies or defaults in respect of the additional single names, in accordance with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(11).14

    8 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.

    9 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(2).

    10 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(3).

    11 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(4).

    12 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(5), (12) and (15).

    13 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(8).

    14 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(d)(11).

    B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The CP CDS Contracts will be available to all ICC participants for clearing. The clearing of these CP CDS Contracts by ICC does not preclude the offering of the CP CDS Contracts for clearing by other market participants. Accordingly, ICC does not believe that clearance of the CP CDS Contracts will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written comments received by ICC.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change, Security-Based Swap Submission, or Advance Notice and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f)(1) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 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.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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-ICC-2017-004 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-ICC-2017-004. 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, security-based swap submission, or advance notice that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change, security-based swap submission, or advance notice 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 filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Credit and on ICE Clear Credit's Web site at https://www.theice.com/clear-credit/regulation.

    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-ICC-2017-004 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 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. 2017-08463 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80504; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-32] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 1002 of the Exchange's Rules To Establish Certain Exemptions From Exercise Limits April 21, 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 11, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX, LLC (“PHLX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 1002 of the Exchange's Rules, as described in further detail below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1002 of the Exchange's rules (the “Rules”), which pertains to exercise limits, so that it is more consistent with the rules of PHLX's sister exchange, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (“ISE”).

    Although Rule 1001 of the Exchange's Rules provides for numerous exemptions to the position limits that the Exchange imposes, Rule 1002(c) provides that “[t]he Exchange will not approve exercises exceeding the [exercise] limits established pursuant to this Rule except in highly unusual circumstances.” Rule 1002(c) further provides that an exemption request must be made in writing and set forth the facts justifying the exemption, and that such a request is subject to the approval of an Options Exchange Official.3

    3See PHLX Rule 1002(c).

    In contrast to PHLX, the rules of ISE do not impose such onerous requirements for approving exemptions from exercise limits. ISE Rule 414(c) states that “[f]or a Member that has been granted an exemption to position limits pursuant to Rule 413(a), the number of contracts which can be exercised over a five (5) business day period shall equal the Member's exempted position.” Rule 413(a) provides for equity hedge and delta-based equity hedge position limit exemptions.

    The Exchange proposes to harmonize Rule 1002 with ISE Rule 414(c) by authorizing exercise limit exemptions as a matter of course, and without requiring members and member organizations to submit written requests and obtain specific approvals for these exemptions, to the extent that such members or member organizations are exempt from position limits as set forth in Rule 1001. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to replace the existing language of Rule 1002(c) with the language of ISE Rule 414(c), except that the Exchange proposes to specify that exercise exemption limits are available to members and member organizations to the extent that they are exempt from position limits pursuant to Rule 1001(l) (exempting equity option hedges) or Rule 1001(n) (exempting delta-based equity hedges).

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,4 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,5 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms 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)(5).

    The Exchange believes that its proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade and a free and open market by granting exercise limit exemptions to a similar extent and under similar circumstances as do other options exchanges, while eliminating the onerous requirement that the Exchange's members and member organizations must obtain approval for such exemptions in each instance and pursuant to written requests. Additionally, broadening the availability of exercise limit exemptions would facilitate risk management practices of members and member organizations.

    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.

    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 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 prior to 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 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.6

    6 In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and 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 under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 7 normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 8 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.

    7 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

    8 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    The Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Commission notes that the Exchange's proposal to adopt exemptions from exercise limits tracks the exemptions from such limits already in place in the rules of ISE. Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.9

    9 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 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) 10 of the Act to determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.

    10 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-Phlx-2017-32 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-2017-32. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2017-32 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08464 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #15114] California Disaster #CA-00271 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of California, dated 04/19/2017.

    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 02/01/2017 through 02/25/2017.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 04/19/2017.

    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/19/2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties: El Dorado, Santa Barbara, Tuolumne Contiguous Counties: California: Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Placer, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Stanislaus, Ventura Nevada: Douglas

    The Interest Rates are:

    Percent Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 3.150 Non Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.500

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 151140.

    The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are California, Nevada.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: April 19, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08524 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION [Disaster Declaration #15113] California Disaster #CA-00270 Declaration of Economic Injury AGENCY:

    U.S. Small Business Administration.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of California, dated 04/19/2017.

    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.

    Incident Period: 01/03/2017 through 01/12/2017.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 04/19/2017.

    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 01/19/2018.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.

    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:

    Primary Counties: Los Angeles, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Tuolumne Contiguous Counties: California: Alameda, Alpine, Calaveras, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Monterey, Orange, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, Ventura

    The Interest Rates are:

    Percent Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere 3.125 Non Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere 2.500

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 151130.

    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is California.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Dated: April 19, 2017. Linda E. McMahon, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08525 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice: 9976] Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Edvard Munch: Between the Clock and the Bed” Exhibition

    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 “Edvard Munch: Between the Clock and the Bed,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco, California, from on or about June 24, 2017, until on or about October 9, 2017, at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 13, 2017, until on or about February 4, 2018, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

    For further information, including a list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: [email protected]). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State,L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Alyson Grunder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08453 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
    TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Bull Run Fossil Plant Landfill AGENCY:

    Tennessee Valley Authority.

    ACTION:

    Record of Decision.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice is provided in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations and Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) procedures for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). TVA has decided to adopt the Preferred Alternative identified in the Bull Run Fossil Plant Landfill Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The notice of availability (NOA) of the Final EIS for the Bull Run Landfill was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2017. This alternative, Construct and Operate a Landfill for Storage of coal combustion residual (CCR) on TVA Property Adjacent to Bull Run Fossil Plant (Site J), would achieve the purpose and need of the project to provide long-term disposal of dry CCR materials produced at the Bull Run Fossil Plant.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anita E. Masters, Project Environmental Planning, NEPA Project Manager, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, BR 4A, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402; telephone (423) 751-8697, or by email [email protected] The Final EIS, this Record of Decision and other project documents are available on TVA's Web site https://www.tva.gov/nepa.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    TVA is a federal agency and instrumentality of the United States created by and existing pursuant to the TVA Act of 1933. Its broad mission is to foster the social and economic welfare of the people of the Tennessee Valley region and to promote the proper use and conservation of the region's natural resources. One component of this mission is the generation, transmission, and sale of reliable and affordable electric energy.

    TVA operates the nation's largest public power system, producing approximately four percent of all of the electricity in the nation. TVA provides electricity to most of Tennessee and parts of Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Currently, it serves more than nine million people in 80,000 square miles (mi) in this seven-state region. The TVA Act requires the TVA power system to be self-supporting and operated on a nonprofit basis and directs TVA to sell electricity at rates as low as are feasible. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. TVA receives no taxpayer funding, deriving virtually all of its revenues from sales of electricity. In addition to operating and investing its revenues in its power system, the TVA Act provides for flood control, navigation and land management for the Tennessee River watershed and assists local power companies and state and local governments with economic development and job creation.

    The Bull Run Fossil Plant generates over six billion kilowatt-hours of electric power in a typical year, which is enough electrical energy to meet the needs of approximately 430,000 homes. Historically, TVA has managed storage of CCR materials at the plant in ash impoundments or dry landfills. To modernize the facility and comply with TVA's commitment to manage CCRs on a dry basis, TVA completed the construction of a mechanical dewatering facility in 2014, which removes free water from the CCR—both bottom ash and gypsum. The CCR is then dry-stacked in an on-site landfill located east of the plant. TVA had already been handling and storing fly ash on a dry basis, so there were no changes to that process as a result of the change to dry storage of CCR.

    The Bull Run Fossil Plant has state-of-the-art air pollution controls and is one of the coal plants that TVA plans to continue operating in the future. TVA needs 20 years of disposal capacity to meet this operational timeline. Based on current estimates of energy production and consumption rates, on-site storage capacity will be expended within 10 years.

    The purpose of this action is to support the need for additional capacity for the long-term management of CCR at Bull Run Fossil Plant. Additional storage capacity would also enable TVA to continue operations at Bull Run Fossil Plant as planned and would be consistent with TVA's voluntary commitment to convert wet CCR management systems to dry systems.

    Alternatives Considered

    TVA considered three alternatives in the Draft EIS and Final EIS. These alternatives are:

    Alternative A—No Action. Under this alternative TVA would not seek additional disposal options for dry placement of CCR generated at Bull Run Fossil Plant. Rather, CCR would continue to be stored in the current disposal areas for as long as storage capacity is available. There is limited capacity for additional CCR disposal on-site. Consequently, at some point in the future, capacity to store CCR on-site will become a limiting factor for continued Bull Run Fossil Plant operations. Any limit on future operations of Bull Run Fossil Plant would not comply with TVA's plan to operate Bull Run Fossil Plant as a base load facility nor conform to TVA's long-range plan to provide power to meet future demands through 2033 as outlined in TVA's Integrated Resource Plan. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and, therefore, is not considered viable or reasonable. It does, however, represent current conditions and as such provides a benchmark for comparing the environmental impacts of implementation of Alternatives B and C.

    Alternative B—Construct and Operate a Landfill for Storage of CCR on TVA Property Adjacent to Bull Run Fossil Plant (Site J). TVA would construct and operate a landfill for disposal of dry CCRs generated at the plant on TVA-owned property located approximately 0.4 mi east of Bull Run Fossil Plant. TVA estimates the landfill would provide approximately 15.5 years of disposal capacity based on projected energy production and consumption rates. Development of Site J would also include construction of a dedicated on-site haul road to convey dry CCR from the plant to the landfill. The 1.37-mile-long haul road would require a bridge to be constructed to convey haul route traffic over New Henderson Road.

    Alternative C—Off-Site Transport of CCR to an Existing Permitted Landfill (Chestnut Ridge). Under this alternative, CCR from Bull Run Fossil Plant would be transported to an existing off-site permitted landfill. The analysis of impacts associated with this alternative is based on the closest landfill that can currently accept CCR material, the Chestnut Ridge Landfill, a Class 1 Municipal Solid Waste Facility located approximately twelve miles northeast of Bull Run Fossil Plant. Dry CCR generated at Bull Run Fossil Plant would be transported by tandem dump trucks on existing roadways to the Chestnut Ridge Landfill for disposal. Barge and rail transport were not considered feasible options for this EIS given the lack of existing infrastructure and the proximity of Chestnut Ridge to Bull Run Fossil Plant.

    Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The EIS includes baseline information for understanding the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the alternatives considered by TVA. TVA considered twenty-one resource areas related to the human and natural environments and the impacts on these resources associated with each alternative.

    Alternative A—No Action would result in the lowest level of environmental impacts as the construction-related impacts resulting from Alternative B and impacts related to transportation of CCR under Alternative C would be avoided. However, Alternative A—No Action, does not meet the purpose and need for the project. Implementation of Alternative B would result in minimal unmitigated impacts to the environment, most of which would be related to construction activities that would be temporary in nature and minimized with implementation of best management practices. Long-term minor impacts to wetlands, a stream on the site and losses of potentially suitable summer roost trees for the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat would be mitigated as described below. The landfill would change the viewshed of some members of the surrounding community. However, as the landfill is located within Bull Run Fossil Plant property in an area that has been modified to support plan operations, there would be a minimal change to the overall scenic value. Alternative C, which utilizes an existing, permitted landfill, would result in few impacts to the natural environment. Impacts associated with this alternative are related to transportation of CCR from Bull Run Fossil Plant to the Chestnut Ridge Landfill.

    Public Involvement

    On May 21, 2015, TVA published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register announcing that it planned to prepare an EIS to address the storage of CCR generated at Bull Run Fossil Plant. The NOI initiated a public scoping period, which concluded on July 6, 2015. In addition to the NOI in the Federal Register, TVA published notices regarding this effort in regional and local newspapers; issued a news release to more than 400 media outlets; and posted the news release on the TVA Web site, and posted flyers and signs near the alternative landfill site to solicit public input.

    The Draft EIS was released to the public on May 20, 2016, and a notice of availability including a request for comments on the Draft EIS, was published in the Federal Register on May 27, 2016. TVA's public and agency involvement for this Draft EIS included a public notice and a 45-day public review of the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was posted on TVA's Web site and hard copies were available by request. To solicit public input, the availability of the Draft EIS was announced in regional and local newspapers and a news release was issued to the media and posted to TVA's Web site. In addition, TVA mailed postcard notifications to all residents within a one-mile radius of the plant (311 addresses). The postcards announced the availability of the EIS and requested comments. The public comment period closed on July 12, 2016, although TVA accepted comments that were submitted as late as August 12, 2016. TVA's agency involvement included sending letters to local, state and federal agencies and federally recognized tribes to notify them of the availability of the Draft EIS.

    TVA received 12 comment submissions, which included letters, emails and submissions through the project Web site. The comment submissions were carefully reviewed and synthesized into comment statements. The most frequently mentioned topics from the public comments were related to the impact from noise and dust from landfill operations as well as the visual impact and change in land use of the site on the surrounding community. TVA provided responses to these comments, made appropriate minor revisions to the Draft EIS and issued the Final EIS.

    The NOA for the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2017.

    Decision

    TVA has decided to implement the preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS, Alternative B—Construct and Operate a Landfill for Storage of CCR on TVA Property Adjacent to Bull Run Fossil Plant (Site J). This alternative was selected over Alternative C—Off-Site Transport of CCR to an Existing Permitted Landfill (Chestnut Ridge) as it would achieve the purpose and need of the project with minimal unmitigated environmental impact, avoid the off-site transport of CCR along public roads, as well as the air emissions, noise, increased traffic and associated long-term safety risks, and disruptions to the public that would be associated with such off-site transport.

    Mitigation Measures

    TVA would use appropriate best management practices during all phases of construction and operation of the landfill. Mitigation measures, actions taken to reduce adverse impacts associated with proposed action, include:

    • Due to the loss of potentially suitable foraging and roosting habitat for endangered bat species, Section 7 consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife will be required. Given the occurrence of potentially suitable roosting habitat for some endangered bat species, all tree clearing would be limited to those times of the year when bats are not expected to be roosting in the area (October 1 through March 31). Impact to bat habitat would be mitigated in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife requirements.

    • TVA has coordinated with State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and has proposed mitigation for areas impacted by relocation and/or encroachment of Worthington Branch through payment to an appropriate stream bank and/or restoration on-site.

    • Actions involving wetlands and/or stream crossings and stream alterations would be subject to requirements outlined in the federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and the TDEC Aquatic Resources Alteration Permit. TVA would adhere to all conditions stipulated in these permits.

    • TVA will maintain the plantings along the portion of Site J adjacent to Old Edgemoor Road to continue to provide a vegetative screen.

    • TVA will develop a fugitive dust plan which identifies adequate dust control measures for this site. As per CCR rule requirements TVA has developed a fugitive dust hotline where concerns regarding fugitive dust can be recorded. Every year TVA will prepare a report detailing the dust controls used, any citizen complaints received, and a summary of any corrective actions taken.

    • TVA will implement a groundwater monitoring plan that adheres to the requirements established in the CCR Rule and those established by TDEC.

    Dated: March 29, 2017. Robert M. Deacy, Sr., Senior Vice President, Generation Construction, Projects & Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08459 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration [Summary Notice No. PE-2017-27] Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of petition for exemption received.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

    DATES:

    Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before May 17, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0117 using any of the following methods:

    Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your comments digitally.

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

    Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at 202-493-2251.

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

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356, email [email protected], phone (425) 227-1047.

    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 21, 2017. Victor Wicklund, Manager, Transport Standards Staff. Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0117.

    Petitioner: Airbus SAS.

    Section of 14 CFR Affected: § 26.21.

    Description of Relief Sought: Requesting time-limited changes to binding schedule dates for Airbus Model A310-200.

    [FR Doc. 2017-08451 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the Winter 2017 Scheduling Season AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission deadline.

    SUMMARY:

    Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline of May 11, 2017, for winter 2017 flight schedules at Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport (SFO), in accordance with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG). The deadline coincides with the schedule submission deadline for the IATA Slot Conference for the winter 2017 scheduling season.

    DATES:

    Schedules must be submitted no later than May 11, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Schedules may be submitted by email to: [email protected]; facsimile: 202-267-7277; or by mail to the Slot Administration Office, AGC-200, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone number: 202-267-6462; email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as IATA Level 2 airports and JFK as an IATA Level 3 airport. The FAA currently limits scheduled operations at JFK by Order.1

    1 Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008) as most recently amended 81 FR 40167 (June 21, 2016).

    The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly conducted commercial operations during peak hours, but carriers may submit schedule plans for the entire day. At ORD, the peak hours are 0700 to 2100 Central Time (1300 to 0300 UTC), at LAX and SFO from 0600 to 2300 Pacific Time (1400 to 0700 UTC), and at EWR and JFK from 0600 to 2300 Eastern Time (1100 to 0400 UTC). Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail, including, at minimum, the operating carrier, flight number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, and effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data elements (Standard Schedules Information Manual or SSIM, Chapter 6) may be used. The WSG provides additional information on schedule submissions and updates at Level 2 and Level 3 airports.

    The U.S. winter scheduling season for these airports is from October 29, 2017, through March 24, 2018, in recognition of the IATA northern winter period. The FAA understands there may be differences in schedule times due to U.S. daylight saving time dates and will accommodate these differences to the extent possible.

    JFK will have construction in 2018 on Runway 13L/31R for rehabilitation of pavement and other airfield improvements. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), the airport operator, is currently developing the construction phasing plans in consultation with FAA, airlines, and other stakeholders. The FAA and the PANYNJ will work together to minimize operational disruptions to the extent possible, similar to prior runway construction projects. As construction plans are developed, the FAA will review alternative runway configurations and operating procedures and model potential capacity and delay impacts. We expect the PANYNJ will conduct regular meetings with the FAA, airlines, and other stakeholders. Those meetings and other information provided by the PANYNJ will likely be the best source of project updates and potential operational impacts.

    LAX will continue rehabilitation on Runway 7L/25R and taxiways during parts of the winter 2017 season. Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), the airport operator, plans construction that will shorten the runway length through December. The runway will be limited to departing flights. Other airfield construction is not currently estimated to have significant operational impacts. LAWA conducts monthly meetings on construction updates with FAA local air traffic control, airline representatives, and other interested stakeholders. The LAWA meetings may be the best source of project updates and potential operational impacts.

    The FAA will use hourly runway capacity throughput for the Level 2 airports in its schedule reviews, considering any differences associated with runway construction or other operational factors. The FAA regularly reviews operational performance metrics and trends to determine if demand, including arrival and departure distribution, during certain time periods may create operational issues and assess whether schedule adjustments or changes to scheduling limits are warranted during those periods.

    There are a few cases where the FAA anticipates potential issues for winter 2017. Carriers are encouraged to take these potential issues into consideration before submitting schedules for winter 2017 and should be prepared to adjust schedules to meet available capacity in order to minimize potential congestion and delay. At EWR, the 0700 to 0859 and 1400-2059 Eastern Time (1200 to 1359 and 1900 to 0159 UTC) hours are expected to be the highest demand periods and not all requests for new flights are likely to be accommodated during those times. At LAX and SFO, the 0700 to 1359 Pacific Time (1500 to 2159 UTC) hours are expected to be the highest demand hours. At ORD, the FAA will continue to review cumulative demand and peaking of scheduled operations to identify potential congested periods. As in previous seasons, at JFK, there is limited availability for new operations outside the mid-morning and late evening periods. Anticipated late winter runway construction could also increase delays above levels normally experienced in that period.

    Each Level 2 airport has a separate process adopted by the airport operator for securing terminal/gate availability for certain types of flights. These are primarily for international passenger flights or for flights operating at particular terminals or gates. The processes with the individual airports will continue separately from, and in addition to, the FAA review of schedules based on runway capacity. IATA maintains the schedule facilitator contact information for carriers planning operations at EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO. There are multiple terminals at JFK and airlines are similarly responsible for securing terminal approval if needed. The FAA may consider the need to harmonize terminal and runway availability. However, this may not always be possible within the various airport and airline constraints.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2017. Michael C. Artist, Acting Vice President, System Operations Services.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08532 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0029] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final disposition.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 44 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    DATES:

    The exemptions were effective on April 7, 2017. The exemptions expire on April 7, 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    II. Background

    On March 7, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from 44 individuals and requested comments from the public (82 FR 12891). The public comment period closed on April 6, 2017, and one comment was received.

    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 44 applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).

    Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).

    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    These 44 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 25 years. These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 7, 2017, Federal Register notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

    III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. Wesley Collier stated that he believes he “would refrain from passing a general rule” allowing drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce, but allow exceptions for drivers who fit certain medical criteria. FMCSA has reviewed the medical histories of all drivers in this document and has determined that granting the exemptions will create a level of safety equal to or greater than what would be achieved without granting the exemptions.

    IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.

    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

    V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

    VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 44 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3):

    M. Rafael Allen (CT) Roger L. Anderson (IL) Joseph S. Bernier (MA) Davarus L. Bouknight (SC) Everett L. Brashears (MA) Thomas G. Brown, II (IN) Sequoyah S. Browning (AR) Alfred B. Cardwell (ND) Gregg J. Chase (NJ) Michael R. Chrisman (NE) Joseph A. Czanstkowski (MN) Daniel G. Durbin (IN) Charles E. Fennington (DE) Craig D. Furlough (NC) Jeffrey D. Griffin (NC) Daryll A. Grinkey (IL) Daniel J. Irving (MD) Charles B. Jesness (CO) Derrick Johnson (IL) Robert F. King (NY) Henry D. Lyons (CT) Owen L. MacDonald (KS) Edwin Martinez, Jr. (DE) Joseph Murray (KS) Bryan J. Orcutt (ID) Jesus H. Oseguera (ID) Eugenio J. Pereira (NJ) Brian R. Repp (WI) Michael W. Robinson (MD) Reynaldo Roman (NY) David A. Rosen (PA) Joseph C. Schulte (OH) Byron L. Short (CO) George W. Sparrow (RI) Gabriel S. Stevens (CT) Stanford A. Tilghman (PA) Joshua F. Tolman (UT) Thomas W. Truitt (WY) Joseph G. Volz (WI) David B. Watson (FL) Curtis D. Weinman (WA) Charlie A. Williams (NC) Timothy J. Williamson (GA) Mark E. Wisecarver (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: April 19, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08497 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 135 individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

    DATES:

    Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line.

    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 135 individuals listed in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.

    II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 135 individuals who have requested renewal of their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 135 drivers remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is identified according to the renewal date.

    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

    III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. The following groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of April and are discussed below.

    As of April 2, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 7852; 79 FR 19798):

    Isaias Gomez (IN) Brandon E. Hamlett (NV) Douglas F. Keller (MI) Mark R. Loesel (WI) Jason E. McAnnally (AL) Samuel L. Sergio (MA) Paul M. Shierk (OR) David W. West (MO) Eugene R. Zollner II (OH)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011. Their exemptions are effective as of April 2, 2017, and will expire on April 2, 2019.

    As of April 5, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, James R. Moretz, Jr. (PA) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 60875; 71 FR 17159).

    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22177. The exemption is effective as of April 5, 2017, and will expire on April 5, 2019.

    As of April 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 7093; 74 FR 15577):

    Daniel J. Conner (PA) Luis G. Garcia (FL) Joey M. Godinho (CA) Gerardo Gonzalez (WI) Edwin L. Haynie (TX) Darryl D. Hewitt (CA) Mark D. Hoag (WA) Patrick H. Junkins (SC) Jeffrey D. Moul (SD) Frank B. Rivett (NY) Michael L. Wise (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2008-0399. Their exemptions are effective as of April 6, 2017, and will expire on April 6, 2019.

    As of April 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (70 FR 75236; 71 FR 17943):

    Roy G. Hill (KY) Anthony D. Izzi (RI) Kenneth L. Pogue (MO)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2005-22905. Their exemptions are effective as of April 7, 2017, and will expire on April 7, 2019.

    As of April 18, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR 26986):

    Scott A. Anderson (MN) Peter A. Breister (WI) Donald J. Carino (IL) Marc B. Curtis (NV) Aaron M. Dixon (SD) Bradley O. Gibson (TX) Theodore F. Griffith (MA) Lawrence E. Handel (OR) Danny P. Hersh (NE) Bryan W. Hughes-Gariepy (NY) James L. Johnson (GA) Thomas Landis (IL) Grant L. Lupold (PA) Nathan R. McGathey (IN) Mark A. Mesnard (OH) Gene K. Milburn (ID) Andrew M. Oliver (MI) Richard L. Peak (KS) Anthony P. Reith (PA) Steven Smith (FL) Robert L. Snyder (MA) John H. Spierings (WI) Robert E. Stokes (WA) Corey R. Sturm (IN) Christopher W. Williams (ID) Robert L. Witt (VT) Paul G. Wright (CO)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. Their exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2017, and will expire on April 18, 2019.

    As of April 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 9467; 74 FR 18436):

    Scott D. Baroch (MT) Michael G. Chisum (NM) Timothy N. Davenport (TN) Henry S. Glover (TX) James R. Halliday (NY) Nathan M. Hennix (ND) Wilbert E. Isadore (TX) Eddie J. Nosser (MO) Joseph C. Perrin III (MN) Ronald A. Stachura (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2009-0055. Their exemptions are effective as of April 22, 2017, and will expire on April 22, 2019.

    As of April 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 14406; 78 FR 24303):

    Christopher R. Anderson (MN) Brent T. Applebury (MO) Jospeh A. Auchterlonie (NH) Brett D. Bertagnolli (IN) Brian T. Bofenkamp (WA) Scott A. Carlson (PA) John Fityere (NJ) Ronald A. Heaps (OH) Martin A. Houts (IA) Michael T. Kraft (MN) Kris W. Lindsay (KS) Edward M. Luczynski (NJ) John E. Ruth (IL) Greggory A. Smith (MO) James M. Torkildson (WI) Terry R. Washa (NE) Alfred J. Williams (VA) Scott B. Wood (ND) James L. Zore (IN)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2013-0013. Their exemptions are effective as of April 24, 2017, and will expire on April 24, 2019.

    As of April 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 36 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 11982; 73 FR 22456; 76 FR 9854; 76 FR 9862; 76 FR 22940; 76 FR 22941):

    Ryan N. Adams (CA) Kevin J. Agler (IN) Michael B. Bessinger (UT) Douglas D. Brown (WI) Warren S. Brown (GA) Roger R. Cabana (ME) Steven W. Ceckiewicz (WI) Joseph F. Colbert (PA) Daniel E. Coufal (NE) Gregory M. Cox (NY) Dennis J. Dallmann (MN) Bruce R. Davis (NJ) Michael B. Elzey (WY) Earl S. Fibish (CA) Todd W. Gillespie (NY) Omar S. Griffin, Jr. (MN) Richard E. Grunden (ND) Mark Hall (NJ) Michael B. Heuett (ID) Dennis P. Hohnerlein (GA) Todd A. Kozemchak (PA) Chad M. Kunkel (MN) Paul F. Lanich (PA) Kenneth L. Lefeld (OH) Daryl G. Lewis (TX) Jeffrey S. Lomber (MI) Joseph G. McDonald (MD) Alan J. Mitchell (DE) Raymond P. Mora, Sr. (AZ) James L. Mynars (MN) John R. Pile (IN) Dale A. Roberts (IA) Richard S. Synakowski (NY) Bruce K. Thomas (NY) Kory M. Tobias (IL) Kevin J. Van Horn (MI)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025. Their exemptions are effective as of April 25, 2017, and will expire on April 25, 2019.

    As of April 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, Spencer J. Olson (ID) has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 14232; 80 FR 26986).

    This driver was included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0314. The exemption is effective as of April 28, 2017, and will expire on April 28, 2019.

    As of April 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 18 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 9399; 72 FR 21316):

    Daniel W. Bezdek (OH) Jason L. Freeseman (IA) Rusty W. Frost (NM) Andrew J. Hayek (WI) Gary L. Koehn (NE) Edward T. Megee (CA) Steven T. Moody (AL) Timothy W. Nelson (MN) Richard W. Newman (NY) Jamison P. Noel (IA) Rex S. Norquist (KS) Steven B. Novak (CA) Russell D. Rockefeller (NY) Scott W. Sheerer (OH) Richard L. Strange (IA) Samuel G. Thiel (ND) Robert J. Varetoni (NJ) Michael R. Vaupel (KS)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2006-26600. Their exemptions are effective as of April 30, 2017, and will expire on April 30, 2019.

    Each of the 135 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-year exemption period.

    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the 135 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314.

    IV. Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by May 30, 2017.

    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 135 individuals from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register publications.

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver.

    V. Submitting Comments

    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 a 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 and in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 and click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue “Comment Now!” button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information required including the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. 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.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.

    VI. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2005-22177; FMCSA-2005-22905; FMCSA-2006-26600; FMCSA-2008-0009; FMCSA-2008-0399; FMCSA-2009-0055; FMCSA-2011-0011; FMCSA-2011-0025; FMCSA-2013-0011; FMCSA-2013-0013; FMCSA-2014-0314 and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” and you will find all documents and comments related to this notice.

    Dated: April 19, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08498 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0031] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes Mellitus AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 50 individuals for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0031 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below for further information.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments online.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period if it finds “such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.” The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 50 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.

    II. Qualifications of Applicants Gerald G. Blacklock

    Mr. Blacklock, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Blacklock understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blacklock meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

    Ronald J. Boe

    Mr. Boe, 67, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Boe understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

    Robert E. Branigan, Jr.

    Mr. Branigan, 62, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Branigan understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Branigan meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

    Wayne P. Cashion

    Mr. Cashion, 61, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cashion understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cashion meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.

    Randall J. Claeys

    Mr. Claeys, 57, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Claeys understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Claeys meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

    Ronald G. Dalle

    Mr. Dalle, 54, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dalle understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dalle meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

    Vincenzo Dellisola

    Mr. Dellisola, 79, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dellisola understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dellisola meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from New York.

    Gary L.A. Driggers

    Mr. Driggers, 35, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Driggers understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Driggers meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Georgia.

    Daniel L. Fernberg

    Mr. Fernberg, 24, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fernberg understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fernberg meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.

    Steven A. Grover

    Mr. Grover, 59, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Grover understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Grover meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Colorado.

    Kenneth L. Hawthorne

    Mr. Hawthorne, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hawthorne understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hawthorne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Mississippi.

    Matthew A. Huebner

    Mr. Huebner, 40, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Huebner understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Huebner meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Illinois.

    James C. Hylton

    Mr. Hylton, 41, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hylton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hylton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.

    Michael A. Jacobson

    Mr. Jacobson, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jacobson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jacobson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.

    David C. Jossi

    Mr. Jossi, 66, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Jossi understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jossi meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Idaho.

    Randy J. Kean

    Mr. Kean, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kean understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kean meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Kentucky.

    Edward T. Klauck

    Mr. Klauck, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Klauck understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Klauck meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri.

    Carl R. Knapp

    Mr. Knapp, 60, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Knapp understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knapp meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

    Robert E. Knox

    Mr. Knox, 44, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Knox understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Knox meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

    Oris Lormeus

    Mr. Lormeus, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lormeus understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lormeus meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New York.

    James V. Maiorana

    Mr. Maiorana, 51, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maiorana understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maiorana meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

    Jerry S. Malloy

    Mr. Malloy, 55, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Malloy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Malloy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma.

    James E. Mann, Jr.

    Mr. Mann, 58, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mann understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mann meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from North Carolina.

    Tremaine E. Mathews

    Mr. Mathews, 21, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mathews understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mathews meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.

    Archie D. McCracken

    Mr. McCracken, 51, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCracken understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCracken meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.

    William M. Nafus

    Mr. Nafus, 58, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nafus understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nafus meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

    David S.E. Patton

    Mr. Patton, 24, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Patton understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Patton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Arkansas.

    Andrew J. Peard

    Mr. Peard, 31, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Peard understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Peard meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.

    Ronald C. Pennyman

    Mr. Pennyman, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pennyman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pennyman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.

    Matthew B. Phillips

    Mr. Phillips, 38, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Phillips understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Phillips meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.

    Larry P. Pruitt

    Mr. Pruitt, 57, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pruitt understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pruitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Carolina.

    Jose L. Ramos

    Mr. Ramos, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ramos understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ramos meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Mexico.

    Danny L. Russell

    Mr. Russell, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Russell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Russell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

    Ronald M. Salas

    Mr. Salas, 68, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Salas understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Salas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from California.

    Roger W. Senff

    Mr. Senff, 54, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Senff understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Senff meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wyoming.

    David M. Seswick

    Mr. Seswick, 64, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Seswick understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Seswick meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Ohio.

    Charles W. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 59, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.

    Jeffery A. Stone

    Mr. Stone, 48, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stone understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stone meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana.

    William C. Suozzo

    Mr. Suozzo, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Suozzo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Suozzo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

    Sean M. Sweeney

    Mr. Sweeney, 36, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sweeney understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sweeney meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Jersey.

    Thomas W. Szaloy

    Mr. Szaloy, 57, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Szaloy understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Szaloy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New Mexico.

    John A. Tagtgren

    Mr. Tagtgren, 46, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tagtgren understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tagtgren meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

    Michael E. Thompson

    Mr. Thompson, 49, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thompson understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

    John A. Wargo

    Mr. Wargo, 32, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wargo understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wargo meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from West Virginia.

    Michael E. Weideman

    Mr. Weideman, 65, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weideman understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weideman meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from South Dakota.

    Monty A. Weigum

    Mr. Weigum, 36, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weigum understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weigum meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.

    Zachery B.J. Weihert

    Mr. Weihert, 24, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weihert understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weihert meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Wisconsin.

    James M. Wenzel

    Mr. Wenzel, 60, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wenzel understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wenzel meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

    Steven G. Wilcox

    Mr. Wilcox, 61, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wilcox understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilcox meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.

    Nathaniel D. Winston

    Mr. Winston, 60, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Winston understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Winston meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

    III. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section of the notice.

    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).1 The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).

    1 Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a “final rule.” However, the 2003 notice did not issue a “final rule” but did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with ITDM.

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3 years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV.

    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).

    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary.

    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    IV. Submitting Comments

    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 a 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 and in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0031 and click the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue “Comment Now!” button on the right hand side of the page. On the new page, enter information required including the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. 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.

    We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after the close of the comment period.

    V. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2017-0031 and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” and you will find all documents and comments related to this notice.

    Issued on: April 19, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08513 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0301] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final disposition.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 62 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

    DATES:

    Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http//www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

    II. Background

    On March 8, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 62 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 13043). The public comment period ended on April 7, 2017, and no comments were received.

    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and amber.

    III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

    VI. Conclusion

    As of March 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 63379; 71 FR 63380; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 9397; 73 FR 36955; 73 FR 61922; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 74563; 73 FR 75803; 73 FR 78422; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6211; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 54958; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 70078; 75 FR 77949; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 9865; 77 FR 48590; 77 FR 68199; 77 FR 68200; 77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74273; 77 FR 74731; 78 FR 797; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 11731; 78 FR 12811; 78 FR 12813; 78 FR 12817; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 59357; 79 FR 65760; 79 FR 72754; 79 FR 73397; 79 FR 73687; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 3723; 80 FR 8751; 80 FR 9304):

    Jawad K. Al-Shaibani (WA) Keith E. Breeding (IN) Robert M. Cassell, Jr. (NC) Steven J. Clark (GA) Joseph Colecchi (PA) Thomas A. Crowell (NC) David M. Hagadorn (NJ) Ricky G. Jacks (AL) William D. Koiner (TX) David S. Matheny (WA) Elmer R. Miller (IL) Jeffrey L. Olson (MN) Randall S. Surber (WV) Ernest W. Waff (VA) Curtis E. Way (TX) Patricia A. White (IL)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0292; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0201; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2012-0338; FMCSA-2012-0339; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2014-0299. Their exemptions are effective as of March 1, 2017, and will expire on March 1, 2019.

    As of March 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 45817; 65 FR 77066; 67 FR 71610; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR 7812; 74 FR 6689; 76 FR 9859; 78 FR 8689; 80 FR 7678):

    Kirk G. Braegger (UT) Ambrosio Calles (NM) Harry P. Henning (PA) Christopher L. Humphries (TX) Ralph J. Miles (OR) Stanley B. Salkowski, III (PA) Michael G. Thomas (PA) William H. Twardus (DE)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2002-13411. Their exemptions are effective as of March 4, 2017, and will expire on March 4, 2019.

    As of March 7, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 66 FR 13825; 68 FR 10300; 70 FR 7546; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 7111; 72 FR 9397; 74 FR 6211; 74 FR 6212; 75 FR 77942; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9861; 78 FR 10250; 80 FR 6162; 80 FR 7679; 80 FR 20562):

    Jason P. Atwater (UT) Barry W. Borger (PA) William W. Dugger (KY) Steven D. Ellsworth (IL) Glen T. Garrabrant (NJ) Richard A. Guthrie (MT) Abdalla M. Jalili (IL) Alan L. Johnston (IL) David M. Krause (WI) Stephen C. Martin (PA) James E. Menz (NY) Ronald M. Metzger (NY) Gerald D. Milner (IL) Ali Nimer (IL) Richard A. Pierce (MO) Rance A. Powell (AL) Shannon E. Rasmussen (WY) Richard P. Rebel (ND) Mustafa Shahadeh (OH) Charles P. Smith (MO) Timothy R. Tedford (IL) Melvin L. Vaughn (WI) Rick L. Wood (PA)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2010-0385; FMCSA-2014-0301. Their exemptions are effective as of March 7, 2017, and will expire on March 7, 2019.

    As of March 23, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 15 individuals have satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR 66286; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 7545; 70 FR 12265; 71 FR 14566; 71 FR 30227; 72 FR 180; 72 FR 7812; 72 FR 9397; 72 FR 11426; 73 FR 27014; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 75803; 74 FR 6209; 74 FR 6689; 74 FR 8302; 75 FR 77942; 75 FR 77949; 76 FR 4413; 76 FR 5425; 76 FR 9859; 76 FR 9861; 76 FR 11215; 78 FR 8689; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR 14410; 80 FR 15859):

    Howard K. Bradley (VA) Willie Burnett, Jr. (FL) Marcus L. Conner (TX) Thomas G. Danclovic (MO) Donald K. Driscoll (MA) William G. Holland (AR) Gerald D. Larson Thomas F. Marczewski (WI) Roy E. Mathews (FL) James T. McGraw, Jr. (PA) Robert S. Metcalf (AZ) Bobby G. Pool, Sr. (TX) Steve A. Reece (TN) Jeremichael Steele (NC) Wade D. Taylor (MO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos: FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2006-24015; FMCSA-2006-25246; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2008-0340; FMCSA-2010-0385. Their exemptions are effective as of March 23, 2017, and will expire on March 23, 2019.

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: April 19, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08511 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070; FMCSA-2014-0313] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final disposition.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions of 71 individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

    DATES:

    Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in the discussions below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, 202-366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

    II. Background

    On March 9, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for 71 individuals from the insulin-treated diabetes mellitus prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (82 FR 13180). The public comment period ended on April 10, 2017, and no comments were received.

    As stated in the previous notice, FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).

    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control.

    III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this preceding.

    IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 71 renewal exemption applications and that no comments were received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the following drivers from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).

    As of March 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 6248; 73 FR 13274):

    Richard L. Burwell (OH) David Clemente, Sr. (NJ) Timothy M. Collier (NY) William M. Dement (MO) James O. Hamilton (OH) William B. Jenks, Jr. (UT) Timothy L. Johnson (IA) Douglas O. Krosch (MN) Robert E. Martin (MO) Garrett A. Phillips (NY) Randy L. Quattlebaum (TX) Mark C. Smith (NE) Billy J. Stamper (OK) Robert E. Tauriainen (OR) David B. Tomlin (AL) Brian T. Tow (WA)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070. Their exemptions are effective as of March 12, 2017, and will expire on March 12, 2019.

    As of March 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 55 individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 8929; 80 FR 24313):

    Timothy E. Adkins (KY) Daniel S. Arke (HI) Raul Arlequin Jr. (FL) Chad W. Beeman (NY) Jeffrey S. Bohle (IA) Bradley T. Boyd (IA) Bradley M. Brauer (NE) Gary W. Brendel (NY) Thomas Browning (PA) Kell D. Busby, Jr. (MI) Rafael B. Castillo (NJ) Zachary D. Craig (ND) Terry R. Darnall (IL) Raymond W. Dropps (MN) Curtis W. Fox (IN) William H. Geiselhart, Jr. (PA) Darrel G. Goetz (MO) Chris S. Hammack (CO) James P. Hancock, Jr. (PA) Donald S. Hanson (MN) Michael Hasley (AR) Gene A. Heibult (SD) Ronald R. Herrington (WV) Jay H. Hess (PA) Kevin L. Holmes (IL) Claude E. Hoskins (WA) Ulysses Jones (IN) Sean M. Jordan (PA) Steven N. Kemp (TX) Tracy A. Knake (IA) Robert E. Lane (IN) Jason C. Lewis (MD) Corey A. Maas (KS) James P. MacDonald (MA) Timothy D. Maxson (NY) Guy D. McGuire (MD) Roy A. Montalvan (PA) Justin M. Powell (NC) Jackie Riley (NC) Rudy A. Rodriguez (OR) Philip M. Schopp (MO) Andrew T. Segetti (CT) Roger L. Shones (MN) William L. Sirabella (RI) Ronald D. Strobo (FL) Rodney H. Swartz (NY) David A. Tipps (IL) Keith J. Tschetter (ND) Sean E. Twohig (NY) Jimmie W. Ward (NC) Michael R. Waskow (WI) James B. Westphal (WI) John A. Winquist (SD) Robert J. Wyand (NY) Michael E. Zincone (RI)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2014-0313. Their exemptions are effective as of March 24, 2017, and will expire on March 24, 2019.

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315, each exemption will be valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: April 19, 2017. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08512 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Transit Administration FY 2017 Competitive Funding Opportunity: Low or No Emission Grant Program AGENCY:

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO).

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announces the opportunity to apply for $55 million in FY 2017 funds for the Low or No Emission Bus Discretionary Grant Program (Low-No Program; Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 20.526), subject to funding availability. Only $31.5 million is available under the Continuing Resolution that expires on April 28, 2017. As required by Federal transit law (49 U.S.C. 5339(c)) and subject to funding availability, funds will be awarded competitively for the purchase or lease of low or no emission vehicles that use advanced technologies for transit revenue operations, including related equipment or facilities. Projects may include costs incidental to the acquisition of buses or to the construction of facilities, such as the costs of related workforce development and training activities, and project administration expenses. FTA may award additional funding that is made available to the program prior to the announcement of project selections.

    DATES:

    Complete proposals must be submitted electronically through the GRANTS.GOV “APPLY” function by June 26, 2017. Prospective applicants should initiate the process by registering on the GRANTS.GOV Web site promptly to ensure completion of the application process before the submission deadline. Instructions for applying can be found on FTA's Web site at http://transit.dot.gov/howtoapply and in the “FIND” module of GRANTS.GOV. The funding opportunity ID is FTA-2017-003-LowNo. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Clark, FTA Office of Program Management, 202-366-2623, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents A. Program Description B. Federal Award Information C. Eligibility D. Application and Submission Information E. Application Review F. Federal Award Administration G. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts H. Technical Assistance and Other Program Information A. Program Description

    Section 5339(c) of Title 49, United States Code, as amended by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, (Pub. L. 114-94, Dec. 4, 2015), authorizes FTA to award grants for low or no emission buses through a competitive process, as described in this notice. The Low or No Emission Bus Program (Low-No Program) provides funding to State and local governmental authorities for the purchase or lease of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses, including acquisition, construction, and leasing of required supporting facilities such as recharging, refueling, and maintenance facilities. FTA recognizes that a significant transformation is occurring in the transit bus industry, with the increasing availability of low and zero emission bus vehicles for transit revenue operations.

    B. Federal Award Information 5339(c) Low or No Emission Discretionary Program

    Federal transit law authorizes $55 million in FY 2017 for grants under the Low-No Program. In FY 2016, the program received applications for 101 projects requesting a total of $446 million. Twenty projects were funded at a total of $55 million.

    FTA will grant pre-award authority starting on the date of project announcement for the FY 2017 awards. Funds are available for obligation until September 30, 2020. Funds are only available for projects that have not incurred costs.

    C. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants include designated recipients, States, local governmental authorities, and Indian Tribes. Except for projects proposed by Indian Tribes, proposals for funding projects in rural (non-urbanized) areas must be submitted as part of a consolidated State proposal. To be considered eligible, applicants must be able to demonstrate the requisite legal, financial and technical capabilities to receive and administer Federal funds under this program. States and other eligible applicants also may submit consolidated proposals for projects in urbanized areas. Proposals may contain projects to be implemented by the recipient or its eligible subrecipients. Eligible subrecipients are entities that are otherwise eligible recipients under this program.

    An eligible recipient may submit an application in partnership with other entities that intend to participate in the implementation of the project, including, but not limited to, specific vehicle manufacturers, equipment vendors, owners or operators of related facilities, or project consultants. If an application that involves such a partnership is selected for funding, the competitive selection process will be deemed to satisfy the requirement for a competitive procurement under 49 U.S.C. 5325(a) for the named entities. Applicants are advised that any changes to the proposed partnership will require advance FTA written approval, must be consistent with the scope of the approved project, and may necessitate a competitive procurement.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    All eligible expenses under the Low-No Program are attributable to compliance with the Clean Air Act. Therefore, under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 5323(i), the maximum Federal participation in the costs of leasing or acquiring a transit bus financed under the Low-No Program is 85 percent of the total transit bus cost. The proposer may request a lower Federal contribution. Further, the maximum Federal participation in the cost of leasing or acquiring low or no emission bus-related equipment and facilities under the Low-No Program, such as recharging or refueling facilities, is 90 percent of the net project cost of the equipment or facilities that are attributable to compliance with the Clean Air Act.

    Eligible sources of local match include the following: cash from non-Government sources other than revenues from providing public transportation services; revenues derived from the sale of advertising and concessions; amounts received under a service agreement with a State or local social service agency or private social service organization; revenues generated from value capture financing mechanisms; funds from an undistributed cash surplus; replacement or depreciation cash fund or reserve; new capital; or in-kind contributions. In addition, transportation development credits or documentation of in-kind match may substitute for local match if identified in the application.

    3. Eligible Projects

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5339 (c)(B), eligible projects include projects or programs of projects in an eligible area for: (1) Purchasing or leasing low or no emission buses; (2) acquiring low or no emission buses with a leased power source; (3) constructing or leasing facilities and related equipment for low or no emission buses; (4) constructing new public transportation facilities to accommodate low or no emission buses; (5) or rehabilitating or improving existing public transportation facilities to accommodate low or no emission buses. As specified under 49 U.S.C. 5339(c)(5)(A), FTA will only consider eligible projects relating to the acquisition or leasing of low or no emission buses or bus facilities that make greater reductions in energy consumption and harmful emissions than comparable standard buses or other low or no emission buses. As specified under 49 U.S.C. 5339(c)(5)(B), all proposed projects must be part of the intended recipient's long-term integrated fleet management plan.

    If a single project proposal involves multiple public transportation providers, such as when an agency acquires vehicles that will be operated by another agency, the proposal must include a detailed statement regarding the role of each public transportation provider in the implementation of the project.

    Under 49 U.S.C. 5339(c)(1)(E), a low or no-emission bus is defined as “a passenger vehicle used to provide public transportation that significantly reduces energy consumption or harmful emissions, including direct carbon emissions, when compared to a standard vehicle.” The statutory definition includes zero-emission transit buses, which are defined as buses that produce no direct carbon emissions and no particulate matter emissions under any and all possible operational modes and conditions. Examples of zero emission bus technologies include, but are not limited to, hydrogen fuel-cell buses and battery-electric buses. All new transit bus models procured with funds awarded under the Low-No Program must complete FTA bus testing for production transit buses pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5318. All transit vehicles must be procured from certified transit vehicle manufacturers in accordance with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) regulations at 49 CFR part 26. The development or deployment of prototype vehicles is not eligible for funding under the Low-No program.

    Recipients are permitted to use up to 0.5 percent of their requested grant award for workforce development activities eligible under 49 U.S.C 5314(b) and an additional 0.5 percent for costs associated with training at the National Transit Institute. Applicants must identify the proposed use of funds for these activities in the project proposal and identify them separately in the project budget.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Address To Request Application

    Applications must be submitted electronically through GRANTS.GOV. General information for submitting applications through GRANTS.GOV can be found at www.fta.dot.gov/howtoapply along with specific instructions for the forms and attachments required for submission. Mail and fax submissions will not be accepted. A complete proposal submission consists of at least two forms: The SF424 Mandatory Form (downloaded from GRANTS.GOV) and the supplemental form for the FY 2017 Low-No Program (downloaded from GRANTS.GOV or the FTA Web site at www.transit.dot.gov/busprogram). Failure to submit the information as requested can delay review or disqualify the application.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission (i) Proposal Submission

    A complete proposal submission consists of at least two forms: (1) The SF424 Mandatory Form; and (2) the supplemental form for the FY 2017 Low-No Program. The application must include responses to all sections of the SF424 Mandatory Form and the supplemental form, unless indicated as optional. The information on the supplemental form will be used to determine applicant and project eligibility for the program, and to evaluate the proposal against the selection criteria described in part E of this notice.

    An applicant may submit multiple project proposals in a single submission, but must include all project proposals on a single supplemental form. To add additional projects, select the “add project” button and complete a separate “project detail” section for each project. FTA will only accept one supplemental form per submission.

    The supplemental form must be submitted as an attachment to the SF424 Mandatory Form. All project proposals will be evaluated separately, regardless of whether they are submitted as a single submission.

    An applicant may submit additional supporting documentation for each project proposal as attachments. Any supporting documentation must be described and referenced by file name in the appropriate response section of the supplemental form, or it may not be reviewed.

    Information such as proposer name, Federal amount requested, local match amount, description of areas served, etc. may be requested in varying degrees of detail on both the SF424 form and Supplemental Form. Proposers must fill in all fields unless stated otherwise on the forms. If information is copied into the supplemental form from another source, applicants should verify that pasted text is fully captured on the supplemental form and has not been truncated by the character limits built into the form. Proposers should use both the “Check Package for Errors” and the “Validate Form” validation buttons on both forms to check all required fields on the forms, and ensure that the federal and local amounts specified are consistent.

    (ii) Application Content

    The SF424 Mandatory Form and the Supplemental Form will prompt applicants for the required information, including:

    a. Applicant Name b. Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number