Federal Register Vol. 82, No.85,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 85 (May 4, 2017)

Page Range20819-21106
FR Document

82_FR_85
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 21105 - Law Day, U.S.A., 2017PDF
82 FR 21103 - National Mental Health Awareness Month, 2017PDF
82 FR 20821 - Establishment of Office of Trade and Manufacturing PolicyPDF
82 FR 20819 - Addressing Trade Agreement Violations and AbusesPDF
82 FR 20912 - Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving To Work Demonstration Program Solicitation of Comment; Waiver Revision and Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 20958 - Hartwell First United Methodist Church-Adverse Abandonment and Discontinuance-Hartwell Railroad Company and the Great Walton Railroad Company, Inc., in Hart County, GAPDF
82 FR 20888 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 20921 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information CollectionPDF
82 FR 20869 - Applications for New Awards; Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs-Native American Language ([email protected]) ProgramPDF
82 FR 20909 - New Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Canine Training Center Adoption ApplicationPDF
82 FR 20859 - Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FLPDF
82 FR 20901 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Declaration of Unaccompanied ArticlesPDF
82 FR 20903 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Importation Bond StructurePDF
82 FR 20902 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of DetentionPDF
82 FR 20901 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special BondPDF
82 FR 20910 - Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Pre✓® Application ProgramPDF
82 FR 20825 - Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Compliance Date; Request for CommentsPDF
82 FR 20867 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20844 - Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 20905 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
82 FR 20897 - Determination of Number of Entities and Recruitment of Entities for Assignment of Corps Personnel Obligated Under the National Health Service Corps Scholarship ProgramPDF
82 FR 20897 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Template for ACL Discretionary Grant Programs; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20896 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Proposed Extension With Modifications of a Currently Approved Collection; National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20896 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-REV); Centers for Independent Living Annual Performance Report (CILPPR); CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20896 - Administration for Community Living; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 20866 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20919 - Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and Components Thereof; Institution of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 20917 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 20918 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
82 FR 20895 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
82 FR 20894 - Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial ReviewPDF
82 FR 20861 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman From the List of Endangered and Threatened WildlifePDF
82 FR 20916 - Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, Colorado; Postponement of MeetingPDF
82 FR 20867 - Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
82 FR 20864 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 20916 - Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council; Postponement of MeetingPDF
82 FR 20917 - John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Council, Oregon; Postponement of MeetingPDF
82 FR 20966 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
82 FR 20959 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; HearingPDF
82 FR 20962 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
82 FR 20961 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Implantable Cardioverter DefibrillatorsPDF
82 FR 20868 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Talent Search (TS) Annual Performance ReportPDF
82 FR 20892 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20878 - Privacy Act System of Records Notice; EIB 2017-0002-Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS)PDF
82 FR 20958 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Refugee Biographic DataPDF
82 FR 20900 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20865 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 20899 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
82 FR 20829 - Indirect Food Additives: PolymersPDF
82 FR 20847 - Natural Resources Defense Council et al.; Denial of Food Additive PetitionPDF
82 FR 20921 - Proposal Review; Notice of MeetingsPDF
82 FR 20888 - FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
82 FR 20930 - Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940PDF
82 FR 20923 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Amended, To Establish the Third Party Connectivity ServicePDF
82 FR 20945 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhancements to OCC's Stock Loan ProgramsPDF
82 FR 20951 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule 6.13PDF
82 FR 20932 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 and To List and Trade Shares of the Royce Pennsylvania ETF; Royce Premier ETF; and Royce Total Return ETF Under Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900PDF
82 FR 20927 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 104 To Delete Subsection (g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibiting Designated Market Makers From Establishing a New High (Low) Price on the Exchange in a Security the DMM Has a Long (Short) Position During the Last Ten Minutes Prior to the Close of TradingPDF
82 FR 20948 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6191 To Implement an Anonymous, Grouped Masking Methodology for Over-the-Counter Activity in Connection With Web Site Data Publication of Appendix B Data Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
82 FR 20926 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 104-Equities To Delete Subsection (g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibiting Designated Market Makers From Establishing a New High (Low) Price on the Exchange in a Security the DMM Has a Long (Short) Position During the Last Ten Minutes Prior to the Close of TradingPDF
82 FR 20968 - Funding Opportunity Title: Notice of Allocation Availability (NOAA) Inviting Applications for the Calendar Year (CY) 2017 Allocation Round of the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) ProgramPDF
82 FR 20956 - Notice of Information Collection Under OMB Emergency Review: Supplemental Questions for Visa ApplicantsPDF
82 FR 20898 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20899 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20922 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20928 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment to the National Market System Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility by Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors Exchange LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE National, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.PDF
82 FR 20882 - Consumer Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 20883 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
82 FR 20882 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications CommissionPDF
82 FR 20889 - Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc; Analysis To Aid Public CommentPDF
82 FR 20866 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20920 - NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
82 FR 20920 - Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same: Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of InvestigationPDF
82 FR 20895 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 20889 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 20889 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 20968 - Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 20864 - Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to the United States; Request for CommentPDF
82 FR 20880 - Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated AuthorityPDF
82 FR 20861 - Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
82 FR 20904 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
82 FR 20832 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
82 FR 20823 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
82 FR 21014 - Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2018, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, SNF Quality Reporting Program, Survey Team Composition, and Proposal To Correct the Performance Period for the NHSN HCP Influenza Vaccination Immunization Reporting Measure in the ESRD QIP for PY 2020PDF
82 FR 20980 - Medicare Program; Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-Mix MethodologyPDF
82 FR 20833 - Comprehensive Review of the Uniform System of Accounts, Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint BoardPDF

Issue

82 85 Thursday, May 4, 2017 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20892-20894 2017-08997 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20866 2017-08964 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Initial Review, 20895 2017-09015 Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel; Initial Review, 20894-20895 2017-09013 2017-09014 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities for FY 2018, SNF Value-Based Purchasing Program, etc., 21014-21100 2017-08521 Prospective Payment System and Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities: Revisions to Case-Mix Methodology, 20980-21012 2017-08519 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20895-20896 2017-08961 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Tennessee Advisory Committee, 20864 2017-09007 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FL, 20859-20861 2017-09036 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Funding Availability: New Markets Tax Credit Program Calendar Year 2017 Allocation Round, 20968-20978 2017-08976 Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Centers for Independent Living Annual Performance Report; Correction, 20896 2017-09021 Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Template for ACL Discretionary Grant Programs; Correction, 20897 2017-09023 National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants; Correction, 20896 2017-09022 Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury Program Performance Report; Correction, 20896-20897 2017-09020 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20866-20867 2017-09019 Meetings: Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, 20867 2017-09008
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Talent Search Annual Performance Report, 20868-20869 2017-08998 Applications for New Awards: Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs: Native American Language Program, 20869-20878 2017-09043 Export Import Export-Import Bank NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20878-20880 2017-08995 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: The Boeing Company Airplanes, 20823-20825 2017-08828 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Comprehensive Reviews: Uniform System of Accounts, Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to Federal-State Joint Board, 20833-20843 2017-07175 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsiderations of Actions in Rulemaking Proceedings, 20861 2017-08953 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20880-20888 2017-08955 2017-08967 2017-08968 Meetings: Consumer Advisory Committee, 20882 2017-08969 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Charter Renewals: Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee, 20888 2017-08985 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 20888-20889 2017-09070 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Suspension of Community Eligibility, 20832-20833 2017-08951 NOTICES Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council, 20904-20905 2017-08952 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 20966-20968 2017-09004 Hearing, 20959-20961 2017-09003 Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators, 20961-20962 2017-08999 Vision, 20962-20966 2017-09000 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Meetings: Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, 20968 2017-08958 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 20889 2017-08960 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 20889 2017-08959 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc, 20889-20892 2017-08965 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Species: 90-Day Finding on Petition to Remove Bone Cave Harvestman from List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 20861-20863 2017-09010 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments, 20825-20829 2017-09029 Indirect Food Additives: Polymers, 20829-20832 2017-08988 PROPOSED RULES Food Additive Petitions; Denials: Natural Resources Defense Council et al., 20847-20859 2017-08987 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20898-20899 2017-08972 2017-08973
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Determination of Number of Entities and Recruitment of Entities for Assignment of Corps Personnel Obligated under National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program, 20897-20898 2017-09024 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Transportation Security Administration

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

PROPOSED RULES Privacy Act: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records, 20844-20846 2017-09026 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 20905-20909 2017-09025
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Moving to Work Demonstration Program: Waiver Revisions, 20912-20916 2017-09139 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 20865-20866 2017-08992 Request for Comments: Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to United States, 20864-20865 2017-08956 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Complaints: Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, 20918-20919 2017-09016 Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, 20917-20918 2017-09017 Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and Components Thereof, 20919-20920 2017-09018 Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, 20920 2017-08962 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council; Postponement, 20916 2017-09006 Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, Colorado; Postponement, 20916 2017-09009 John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council, Oregon; Postponement, 20917 2017-09005 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: International Space Station Advisory Committee, 20920-20921 2017-08963 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 20899 2017-08989 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20921-20922 2017-09044 Meetings: Proposal Review, 20921 2017-08986 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20867-20868 2017-09027 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: Law Day, U.S.A. (Proc. 9604), 21105-21106 2017-09211 National Mental Health Awareness Month (Proc. 9603), 21101-21104 2017-09209 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Committees; Establishment, Renewal, Termination, etc.: Trade and Manufacturing Policy, Office of; Establishment (EO 13797), 20821-20822 2017-09161 Trade: Trade Agreement Violations and Abuses: Policy to Address (EO 13796), 20819-20820 2017-09156 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20922-20923 2017-08971 Applications: Deregistration, 20930-20932 2017-08984 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., et al., 20928-20930 2017-08970 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 20951-20956 2017-08981 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 20948-20951 2017-08978 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 20923-20926 2017-08983 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 20927 2017-08979 NYSE Arca, Inc., 20932-20945 2017-08980 NYSE MKT, LLC, 20926-20927 2017-08977 Options Clearing Corp., 20945-20948 2017-08982 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Refugee Biographic Data, 20958 2017-08994 Supplemental Questions for Visa Applicants, 20956-20957 2017-08975 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20900-20901 2017-08993 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Adverse Abandonments and Discontinuances: Hartwell First United Methodist Church; Hartwell Railroad Co. and Great Walton Railroad Co., Inc., in Hart County, GA, 20958-20959 2017-09135 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Security Transportation Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: TSA Canine Training Center Adoption Application, 20909-20910 2017-09038 TSA Pre-Check Application Program, 20910-20911 2017-09030 Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 20902-20903 2017-09032 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Exportation of Articles under Special Bond, 20901 2017-09031 Declaration of Unaccompanied Articles, 20901-20902 2017-09034 Importation Bond Structure, 20903-20904 2017-09033 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 20980-21012 2017-08519 Part III Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 21014-21100 2017-08521 Part IV Presidential Documents, 21101-21106 2017-09211 2017-09209 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 85 Thursday, May 4, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9570; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-185-AD; Amendment 39-18866; AD 2017-09-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that undetected web fatigue cracking caused by oil canning may exist in the aft pressure bulkhead web. This AD requires repetitive detailed inspections for any oil canning or cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 8, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9570.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9570; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes and Model 720 and 720B series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1627). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that undetected web fatigue cracking caused by oil canning may exist in the station 1440 aft pressure bulkhead web. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive detailed inspections for any oil canning or cracking of the station 1440 aft pressure bulkhead web, and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could grow in length and ultimately reduce the structural integrity of the web and lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

Comments

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

Request To Change Service Information Citation

Boeing requested that we spell out the full title of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543 instead of using the shortened “ASB A3543.” Boeing pointed out that using the acronym “ASB” instead of spelling out “Alert Service Bulletin” is a change from past practices. Boeing stated that the “A” in front of the service bulletin number is short for “Alert” and doesn't require a new acronym. Boeing added that the shortened citation omitted the airplane model number, which should always be included when referring to service information.

We agree with the request. We have abbreviated the titles of service bulletins to simplify ADs in response to other AD comments. However, we did not intend to remove the airplane model number. Therefore, we have changed the citation throughout this final rule as requested.

Request To Clarify “Required for Compliance (RC) Exempt” Steps

Boeing requested that we change paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of the proposed AD to read “Steps not labeled as RC, or labeled as `RC Exempt,' may be deviated from . . . .” Boeing stated that it intended to include the same treatment for steps labeled “RC Exempt” as for steps not labeled as RC. Boeing asserted that this needed to be explicitly stated in paragraph (j)(4)(ii) of the proposed AD, just as it is in paragraph (j)(4)(i) of the proposed AD.

We disagree because we find that this additional language is not necessary. As paragraph (j)(4)(i) of the proposed AD states, if a step is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step. Therefore, steps labeled as “RC Exempt” are treated the same as those not labeled RC. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016. The service information describes procedures for repetitive detailed inspections for any oil canning or cracking of the station 1440 aft pressure bulkhead web, and related corrective actions. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Inspection for oil canning 6 work-hours × $85 per hour = $510 per inspection cycle $0 $510 per inspection cycle $6,120 per inspection cycle.

    We estimate the following costs to do any additional inspections that would be required based on the results of the initial inspection. These cost estimates are for one oil canning location. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Oil canning zone determination and inspection 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 Detailed inspection and eddy current inspection for cracks 13 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,105 0 1,105 High frequency eddy current inspection for crack location, length, and orientation 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 0 170

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for certain corrective actions specified in this AD.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-09-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18866; Docket No. FAA-2016-9570; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-185-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective June 8, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, and in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD.

    (1) The Boeing Company Model 707-100 Long Body, -200, -100B Long Body, and -100B Short Body series airplanes; and Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes.

    (2) The Boeing Company Model 720 and 720B series airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that undetected web fatigue cracking caused by oil canning may exist in the station 1440 aft pressure bulkhead web. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could grow in length and ultimately reduce the structural integrity of the web and lead to rapid decompression of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections and Related Investigative and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD: Do all applicable actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the station 1440 aft pressure bulkhead web for any oil canning. Repeat the inspection at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016.

    (2) Do all applicable related investigative actions, including detailed, eddy current, and high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016.

    (3) Do all applicable corrective actions at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016.

    (h) Service Information Exceptions

    (1) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as Required for Compliance (RC), this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the airplane can be repaired, but if any crack is found as identified in Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016, concurrence by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, is required before issuance of the special flight permit.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5232; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3543, dated September 15, 2016.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Paul Bernado, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08828 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 11 and 101 [Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172] RIN 0910-ZA48 Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Compliance Date; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule; extension of compliance date; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is extending the compliance date for the final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments. In the Federal Register of December 30, 2016, we stated that the compliance date for the final rule would be May 5, 2017. We are extending the compliance date to May 7, 2018. We are taking this action to enable us to consider how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives, in keeping with the Administration's policies.

    DATES:

    Compliance date: As of May 4, 2017, the compliance date for covered establishments set out in the final rule published December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71156), and extended in final rules published on July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39675) and December 30, 2016 (81 FR 96364), is further extended. Covered establishments must comply with the rule published December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71156), by May 7, 2018.

    Comment date: Submit either electronic or written comments regarding this compliance date extension, implementation of the December 2014 final rule, and the various topics flagged in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document, by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of July 3, 2017. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172 for “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Compliance Date; Request for Comments.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see DATES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Felicia B. Billingslea, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2371.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In the Federal Register of December 1, 2014 (79 FR 71156), we published a final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments. The final rule, which is now codified at § 101.11 (21 CFR 101.11), implements provisions of section 403(q)(5)(H) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(q)(5)(H)) and:

    • Defines terms, including terms that describe criteria for determining whether an establishment is subject to the rule;

    • establishes which foods are subject to the nutrition labeling requirements and which foods are not subject to these requirements;

    • requires that calories for standard menu items be declared on menus and menu boards that list such foods for sale;

    • requires that calories for standard menu items that are self-service or on display be declared on signs adjacent to such foods;

    • requires that written nutrition information for standard menu items be available to consumers who ask to see it;

    • requires, on menus and menu boards, a succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake (succinct statement), designed to help the public understand the significance of the calorie declarations;

    • requires, on menus and menu boards, a statement regarding the availability of the written nutrition information (statement of availability);

    • establishes requirements for determination of nutrient content of standard menu items;

    • establishes requirements for substantiation of nutrient content determined for standard menu items, including requirements for records that a covered establishment must make available to FDA within a reasonable period of time upon request; and

    • establishes terms and conditions under which restaurants and similar retail food establishments not otherwise subject to the rule could elect to be subject to the requirements by registering with FDA.

    In the preamble to the final rule (79 FR 71156 at 71239 through 71241), we stated that the rule would be effective on December 1, 2015, and also provided a compliance date of December 1, 2015, for covered establishments. The final rule (at § 101.11(a)) defines “covered establishment” as a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is a part of a chain with 20 or more locations doing business under the same name (regardless of the type of ownership, e.g., individual franchises) and offering for sale substantially the same menu items, as well as a restaurant or similar retail food establishment that is voluntarily registered to be covered under § 101.11(d).

    II. Extension of the Compliance Date and Request for Comments

    In the Federal Register of July 10, 2015 (80 FR 39675), in response to requests from affected entities, we announced our decision to extend the compliance date for the final rule to December 1, 2016.

    On December 18, 2015, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113). Section 747 of that law states that none of the funds made available under the Consolidated Appropriations Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule entitled “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments” until the later of December 1, 2016 or 1 year after the date we publish a Level 1 guidance with respect to nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments.

    In the Federal Register of May 5, 2016 (81 FR 27067), we announced the availability of the Level 1 guidance document and stated that enforcement of the final rule published December 1, 2014, would commence on May 5, 2017 (81 FR 27067 at 27068). In the Federal Register of December 30, 2016 (81 FR 96364), we confirmed that the compliance date would be May 5, 2017.

    This interim final rule extends the compliance date to May 7, 2018. We are taking this action consistent with Executive Orders 13777, 13771, and 13563, as well as in response to the diverse and complex set of stakeholders affected by the rule and continued, numerous, and fundamental questions they raise regarding the final rule and its implementation. The continued, fundamental questions and concerns with the final rule suggest that critical implementation issues, including some related to scope, may not have been fully understood and the agency does not want to proceed if we do not have all of the relevant facts on these matters. Retailers with many different and diverse business models have raised concerns about how the rule lacks flexibility to permit them to provide meaningful nutrition information to consumers given their type of business and different operations. Moreover, we continue to receive many questions about calorie disclosure signage for self-service foods, including buffets and grab-and-go foods. We do not want to proceed with a rule that might turn out to be too inflexible to support innovation in delivering information to consumers. In addition, we have received questions regarding how to distinguish a menu, which requires the posting of calorie information, from advertisements and other marketing pieces, which do not require calorie information. Many of these menu questions are complex and have highlighted for the agency the need for further consideration and clarification. How to address the natural calorie variations for foods has also been raised by stakeholders as an issue that needs additional guidance and clarity. Finally, some entities with certain business models have stated that they continue to have questions about what provisions of the final rule are applicable to them. We believe questions like this still need to be addressed.

    The previous extensions, as well as Congressional concern regarding implementation expressed through letters and appropriations law, are a reflection of the challenge in implementing this rule for a diverse industry of approximately 298,600 covered establishments, organized under 2,130 chains, that we estimated to be covered by the 2014 final rule. Executive Order 13777, “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” (82 FR 12285, March 1, 2017), sets forth a policy to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Given the principles and policies set forth in these executive orders, particularly with respect to reducing burdens, reducing costs, maintaining flexibility, and improving effectiveness, we have decided to extend the compliance date to May 7, 2018. The additional time will allow us to consider what opportunities there may be to address these fundamental and complex questions and reduce the cost and enhance the flexibility of these requirements beyond those reflected in the final rule. Given our decision to reconsider the rule consistent with these Executive Orders, it would not make sense to require establishments covered by our final rule to come into compliance with the rule (for which compliance is not yet required), as well as incur additional ongoing costs to maintain or update compliance, when these requirements may change as a result of our reconsideration of the rule. We solicit comment on the extension of the compliance date.

    To assist us in our review, we invite interested parties to submit comments on how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives to provide consumers with nutrition information so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. In particular, and in light of the issues we have noted above, we are interested in hearing about approaches to reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility with respect to:

    (1) Calorie disclosure signage for self-service foods, including buffets and grab-and-go foods;

    (2) methods for providing calorie disclosure information other than on the menu itself, including how different kinds of retailers might use different methods; and

    (3) criteria for distinguishing between menus and other information presented to the consumer. (See ADDRESSES for instructions on submitting comments.) These questions have been identified by stakeholders as among the fundamental issues that continue to pose significant implementation challenges. As of April 7, 2017, we have received five requests for an extension of the compliance period, which we will add to the docket. In addition, on April 5, 2017, a request to stay the effective date was submitted to FDA (see Docket No. FDA-2017-P-2164); this request is currently under consideration.

    To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this extension of the compliance date, the action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, to the extent that the notice-and-comment and delayed effective date requirements set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the Federal Register, is based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). Given the imminence of the compliance date (May 5, 2017), and the fact that, as discussed above, a number of regulated establishments continue to raise numerous, complex questions about applicability of the menu labeling requirements and about how to implement them, we have decided that providing an opportunity for public comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This is because providing immediate notice to covered establishments of the additional time to come into compliance allows for more efficient planning and accounting for implementation of requirements, thus reducing regulatory burden and costs on affected entities. In addition, providing immediate notice that there will be additional time to comply is necessary so that affected entities can avoid incurring immediate costs and efficiently plan and account for implementation of the requirements by the imminent compliance date. Good cause exists to delay the compliance date without comment and effective immediately. In accordance with 21 CFR 10.40(e)(1), however, we note that interested parties may provide comment on the compliance date extension, including whether it should be modified or revoked. In addition, interested parties may submit comments on how we might further reduce the regulatory burden or increase flexibility while continuing to achieve our regulatory objectives with respect to providing consumers with nutrition information so that they can make informed choices for themselves and their families. In addition, as we have done throughout this complex rulemaking process, we will continue to work with stakeholders as we go forward.

    III. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We have examined the impacts of the interim final rule under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, Executive Order 13771, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct us to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13771 requires that the costs associated with new regulations shall “be offset by the elimination of existing costs associated with at least two prior regulations.” We have developed an Economic Analysis of Impacts that assesses the impacts of the interim final rule, including cost savings to industry and foregone benefits to consumers. We estimate at least one type of impact in at least one year to be greater than $100 million. Thus, we believe that this interim final rule is an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule reduces the burden on covered establishments by further extending the compliance date for the “Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments” final rule (79 FR 71156, December 1, 2014 (final rule); 80 FR 39675, July 10, 2015 (extending the compliance date to December 1, 2016); 81 FR 96364, December 30, 2016 (clarifying extension of the compliance date to May 5, 2017)), we certify the interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (section 202(a)) requires us to prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $148 million, using the most current (2016) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. This interim final rule would not result in an expenditure by industry in any year that meets or exceeds this amount.

    This interim final rule extends the compliance date to May 7, 2018, for the final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. The principal benefit of this interim final rule will be the reduction in costs to covered establishments associated with extending the compliance date by one year. The total annualized benefit (i.e., cost savings) of this interim final rule, using a 3-percent discount rate over 20 years, would be from $2 to $6 million; with a 7-percent discount rate, the annualized benefit would be $3 to $8 million. The principal cost of this interim final rule will be the reduction in benefits to consumers associated with extending the compliance date by one year. The total annualized cost (i.e., foregone benefits) of this interim final rule, using a 3-percent discount rate over 20 years, would be from $5 to $15 million; with a 7-percent discount rate, the annualized cost would be $6 to $19 million. Extending the compliance date of the “Food Labeling: Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments” final rule by one year reduces the annualized net benefits (discounted at 3 percent) approximately 1 percent, from $506 million to $501 million. While average annualized net benefits decrease by $5 million, they are still positive. We recognize that there may be additional costs and benefits to both consumers and covered establishments that we do not have the data to quantify here. We are presenting the estimated benefits and costs of the menu labeling final rule, which takes effect according to the dates in this interim final rule. These quantitative estimates reflect an assumed baseline in which the menu labeling regulation eventually goes fully into effect. If statutory or other changes that are separate from FDA rulemaking were to impact full implementation, the quantitative benefits estimates would be lower and the quantitative cost estimates higher than shown here. We invite comment on both this Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the December 2014 final rule.

    The full analysis of economic impacts is available in the docket for this interim final rule (Ref. 1) and at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses/default.htm.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    V. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We have determined under 21 CFR 25.30(k) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    VI. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. FDA, interim economic impact analysis for “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Compliance Date; Request for Comment,” April 2017. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/EconomicAnalyses. Dated: May 1, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09029 Filed 5-1-17; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 177 [Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1805] Indirect Food Additives: Polymers AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers because this use has been abandoned. This action is in response to a petition filed by Keller and Heckman LLP on behalf of the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective May 4, 2017. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing on the final rule by June 5, 2017. See the ADDRESSES section, and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section VIII of this document, for further information on the filing of objections.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. Electronic objections must be submitted on or before June 5, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of June 5, 2017. Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Objections submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your objection does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your objection, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper objections submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-F-1805 for “Indirect Food Additives: Polymers.” Received objections, those filed in a timely manner (see DATES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vivian Gilliam, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1193.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In a document published in the Federal Register of June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42585), we announced that we filed a food additive petition (FAP 6B4816) submitted on behalf of Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) by Keller and Heckman LLP, 1001 G Street NW., Suite 500 West, Washington, DC 20001. The petition proposed to amend § 177.1210 (21 CFR 177.1210) to no longer provide for the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers because the use has been intentionally and permanently abandoned.

    In response to food additive petitions filed in 1962, FDA authorized the use of 66 substances, including potassium perchlorate, for the use in manufacturing closure-sealing gaskets under § 177.1210 (27 FR 7092, July 26, 1962).

    II. Evaluation of Abandonment

    Section 409(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 348(i)) states that we shall, by regulation, establish the procedure for amending or repealing a food additive regulation, and that this procedure shall conform to the procedure provided in section 409 of the FD&C Act. Our regulations specific to administrative actions for food additives provide that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, may propose the issuance of a regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food additive (§ 171.130(a) (21 CFR 171.130(a))). These regulations further provide that any such petition must include an assertion of facts, supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical, or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may justify its amendment or repeal. New data submitted as a food additive petition must be furnished in the form specified in 21 CFR 171.1 and 171.100 for submitting such petitions (§ 171.130(b)). Under these regulations, a petitioner may propose that we amend a food additive regulation if the petitioner can demonstrate that there are “old uses abandoned” for the relevant food additive. Such abandonment must be complete and permanent for any intended uses in the U.S. market. Although section 409 of the FD&C Act and § 171.130 also provide for amending or revoking a food additive regulation based on safety, an amendment or revocation based on abandonment is not based on the safety of the food additive. Instead, the amendment or revocation is based on the fact that regulatory authorization is no longer necessary because the use of the food additive has been permanently and completely abandoned.

    Abandonment may be based on the abandonment of certain authorized food additive uses for a substance (e.g., if a substance is no longer used in certain product categories) or on the abandonment of all authorized food additive uses of a substance (e.g., if a substance is no longer being manufactured). If a petition seeks an amendment to a food additive regulation based on the abandonment of certain uses of the food additive, such uses must be adequately defined so that both the scope of the abandonment and any amendment to the food additive regulation are clear.

    The present petition includes the following information to support the claim that the use of potassium perchlorate as a food additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers has been abandoned in the U.S. market: (1) None of the companies that originally petitioned for the inclusion of potassium perchlorate in § 177.1210 use potassium perchlorate for food-contact applications in the United States; (2) the sole domestic manufacturer of potassium perchlorate does not market the substance into food contact applications in the United States; (3) the major domestic manufacturers of gaskets do not use potassium perchlorate in the manufacture of their products; and (4) none of the member companies, which include domestic and international companies, surveyed by SPI indicated that they had any knowledge or reason to believe that potassium perchlorate was being used in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers.

    First, the petition provided information to show that the original petitioners who filed the food additive petitions that resulted in the listing of potassium perchlorate in § 177.1210 do not use potassium perchlorate for food-contact applications in the United States. The petition stated that three of the original four companies that filed the food additive petitions that resulted in the listing for potassium perchlorate in § 177.1210 are still operating, and that the division of the fourth company that participated in the original petition is no longer in business. The petitioner surveyed the remaining three companies (or their appropriate successor(s) in interest) about their use of potassium perchlorate in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers and asked them to verify that they do not: (1) Currently manufacture potassium perchlorate for use as a component of closures with sealing gaskets for food containers in the United States; (2) currently import potassium perchlorate for use as a component of closures with sealing gaskets for food containers in the United States; (3) intend to manufacture or import potassium perchlorate for use as a component of closures with sealing gaskets for food containers in the United States in the future; or (4) currently maintain any inventory of potassium perchlorate for sale or distribution into commerce that is intended to be marketed for use as a component of closures with sealing gaskets for food containers in the United States. The petition included signed letters from the three companies confirming agreement with these four points.

    Second, the petition asserted that American Pacific Corporation, Western Electrochemical Company (AMPAC) is the sole known domestic manufacturer of potassium perchlorate and provided information to show that AMPAC does not market the substance for food contact applications in the United States. Specifically, the petition included a signed letter from AMPAC stating that it does not manufacture, import, or maintain any inventory of potassium perchlorate for sale or distribution for use in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers in the United States. In addition, AMPAC provided supplemental information stating that, to the best of its knowledge, AMPAC is the sole domestic manufacturer of potassium perchlorate in the United States.

    Third, the petition provided information to show that the major domestic manufacturers of gaskets do not use potassium perchlorate in the manufacture of their products. The petition stated that SPI conducted research to identify all major U.S.-based manufacturers of closures with sealing gaskets for food containers. The petition further stated that SPI contacted each manufacturer identified by its research, and that each company confirmed to SPI that it does not use potassium perchlorate in the manufacture of gaskets for food contact materials, and that potassium perchlorate may never have been used for this purpose. According to the petition, these manufactures believe that they represent the substantial majority of gasket production, not only domestically, but globally as well.

    Fourth, the petition stated that SPI surveyed the 53 companies in its Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee (FDCPMC). According to the petition, the FDCPMC companies represent the full range of the packing supply chain of plastic food-contact material manufacturers and their raw material suppliers, and they include international companies with affiliates throughout the world. The petition stated that the survey asked the companies to advise whether they had any actual knowledge or reason to believe that “potassium perchlorate is being manufactured, used, distributed, or imported into the U.S. for use in the manufacture of closures with sealing gaskets for food-contact applications.” No company responded that it had any knowledge or reason to believe that potassium perchlorate was being used in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers. Moreover, the petition stated that, in its effort to gather supporting information, the petitioner was unable to identify any company with memory of, or records indicating, that potassium perchlorate had ever been used commercially as a component of closures with sealing gaskets.

    III. Comments on the Filing Notification

    We provided 60 days for comments on the filing notification. We received two comments. For ease of reading, we preface each comment discussion with a numbered “Comment,” and the word “Response” appears before FDA's response. The number assigned is for organizational purposes only and does not signify any individual comment's value, importance, or order in which it was received.

    (Comment 1) The comment requested that we not make a final decision on the petition until after we make a final decision on the petition (FAP 4B4808) submitted in 2014 by Natural Resources Defense Council et al. (Docket No. FDA-2015-F-0537), asking us to remove certain authorizations, including the use of potassium perchlorate that is the subject of this petition. The comment stated that we are statutorily required to regulate food additives and prevent the use of those that are unsafe and that FDA's failure to make a determination based on safety would fall short of FDA's statutory duty. The comment stated that if we make a decision on the petition based on abandonment before making a decision on FAP 4B4808 based on safety, a company may conclude that the use of potassium perchlorate in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) without notifying us. The comment also stated that making a decision on the abandonment petition first encourages industry to only consider whether a use of a food additive has been abandoned in order to preempt a safety decision.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. We are not required to make a final decision on FAP 4B4808 before the current petition. With regard to the assertion that FDA is required to make a safety determination, FDA has numerous responsibilities related to food additives. Each year, FDA receives and responds to hundreds of submissions under the various petition and notification programs it administers. Therefore, if the use of a food additive is no longer authorized in response to an abandonment petition, FDA may determine that it is neither necessary nor an efficient use of its limited resources to address safety arguments related to an abandoned use.

    With regard to the comment's concern that a manufacturer may conclude that the use of potassium perchlorate in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers is GRAS without notifying us, we note that, for a substance to be GRAS based on scientific procedures, the scientific data and information about the use of a substance must be generally available and there must be general recognition among qualified experts that those data and information establish that the substance is safe under the conditions of its intended use (§ 170.30). Prior approval as a food additive does not necessarily mean that the use of a substance is GRAS (see 81 FR 54960 at 54976, August 17, 2016). FDA encourages firms to seek our evaluation of any conclusion of GRAS status before they introduce the substance into the market. In the event that, after the authorization in § 177.1210 has been removed based on abandonment, a manufacturer later wishes to use potassium perchlorate for this intended use, we would expect the manufacturer to seek re-authorization through submission of a food contact notification or food additive petition because this intended use was previously authorized under section 409 of the FD&C Act.

    With regard to the assertion that an abandonment petition could be used by industry to preempt a safety determination by FDA, we have the discretion to make a safety determination regardless of whether there is an abandonment petition.

    (Comment 2) The comment stated that SPI has not considered overseas use and manufacturing of potassium perchlorate in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers. The comment indicated that SPI had not provided sufficient assurances that the uses of potassium perchlorate had been abandoned.

    (Response) FDA disagrees. According to the petition, SPI gathered information about the use of potassium perchlorate used in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers from its member companies, which include international companies with affiliates throughout the world, and from major domestic manufacturers of gaskets, and these manufacturers believe that they represent the substantial majority of gasket production, not only domestically, but globally as well. None of the companies surveyed reported that they had any reason to believe that potassium perchlorate is used to make closures with sealing gaskets for food containers. We note that the comment did not provide information to show that this use has not been abandoned.

    In addition, when we publish a notice of filing of a food additive petition, we notify the World Trade Organization (WTO) of the FAP filing. The WTO provides notice of the potential action (in this case, the removal of authorization for potassium perchlorate in § 177.1210 based upon abandonment) to the WTO contact point for each WTO member country. The WTO contact point for each country distributes the notices to the relevant regulatory agencies and industry bodies within that country. If the proposed action affects a member country's trade of affected products, it would provide comment to the WTO notice by commenting to the appropriate docket established for the petition. We did not receive any comments to the WTO notice on the filing of this petition.

    IV. Conclusion

    We reviewed the data and information in the petition and other available relevant material to determine whether the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers has been permanently and completely abandoned. Based on the available information, we conclude that the use of potassium perchlorate has been abandoned for use as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers. Therefore, we are amending part 177 as set forth in this document to no longer provide for the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers.

    Because the authorization for this intended use has been removed from § 177.1210 based on abandonment, we do not anticipate that industry will resume this intended use in the future. In the event that, after the authorization in § 177.1210 has been removed based on abandonment, a manufacturer later wishes to use potassium perchlorate for this intended use, we would expect the manufacturer to seek re-authorization through submission of a food contact notification or food additive petition because this intended use was previously authorized under section 409 of the FD&C Act.

    V. Public Disclosure

    In accordance with § 171.1(h), the petition and the documents that we considered and relied upon in reaching our decision to approve the petition will be made available for public disclosure (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). As provided in § 171.1(h), we will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure.

    VI. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    We previously considered the environmental effects of this rule, as stated in the Federal Register of June 30, 2016, notice of petition for FAP 6B4816. We stated that we had determined, under 21 CFR 25.32(m), that this action “is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,” such that neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. We have not received any new information or comments that would affect our previous determination.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

    VIII. Objections

    If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

    Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 177

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 177 is amended as follows:

    PART 177—INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: POLYMERS 1. The authority citation for part 177 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

    § 177.1210 [Amended]
    2. In § 177.1210, in paragraph (b)(5), in table 1, remove the entry for “Potassium perchlorate.” Dated: April 28, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08988 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8477] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

    DATES:

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain
  • Federal assistance no longer available in SFHAs
  • Region IV Mississippi: North Carrollton, Town of, Carroll County 280028 June 16, 1975, Emerg; April 3, 1978, Reg; May 2, 2017, Susp. May 2, 2017 May 2, 2017. -do- =Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: April 24, 2017. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08951 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 32, and 65 [WC Docket No. 14-130, CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 17-15] Comprehensive Review of the Uniform System of Accounts, Jurisdictional Separations and Referral to the Federal-State Joint Board AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) completes its proceeding to review the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) to minimize the compliance burdens on carriers while ensuring that the agency retains access to the information it needs to fulfill its regulatory duties.

    DATES:

    The rules adopted in this document shall become effective on January 1, 2018, with the exception of amendments to §§ 1.1409 and 32.1, which shall become effective following publication in the Federal Register of a document announcing approval by OMB of these amendments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robin Cohn, Wireline Competition Bureau, Pricing Policy Division at (202) 418-2747 or at [email protected], or Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-2991 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, WC Docket No. 14-130, CC Docket 80-286; FCC 17-15, adopted February 23, 2017 and released February 24, 2017. The full text of this document may be downloaded at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0228/FCC-17-15A1.pdf. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of our streamlining the part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (part 32 USOA) accounting rules and find that the Commission's actions will result in overall reduced regulatory burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers, including small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, the Report and Order allows price cap carriers to elect to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes so long as they comply with targeted accounting rules. Because incumbent LECs subject to price cap regulation are among the largest of telecommunications companies, we do not anticipate any impact from this action on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

    Synopsis I. Introduction

    1. In this Report and Order (Order), we complete our proceeding to review our part 32 Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) to consider ways to minimize the compliance burdens on carriers while ensuring that the agency retains access to the information it needs to fulfill its regulatory duties. Section 220 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), authorizes the Commission to prescribe the system of accounts to be used by carriers subject to the Act, and the USOA and its predecessors have historically performed this function for regulated telephone companies. But the USOA comes with a cost: Many regulated companies must maintain two sets of books—one for financial reporting and another for regulatory purposes—with the attendant costs of additional training for accountants, creating a second set of customized accounting software, and auditing two sets of processes for compliance.

    2. We now conclude that, in light of the Commission's actions in areas of price cap regulation, universal service reform, and intercarrier compensation reform, as well as the advancement of robust intermodal competition in the market for telephone services, the duty to maintain two sets of accounts is generally not necessary for price cap carriers. Moreover, with respect to all carriers, we streamline and eliminate outdated accounting rules no longer needed to fulfill our statutory or regulatory duties. By reducing the costly burden of outdated regulatory requirements placed upon carriers, today's reforms give carriers the ability to better allocate scarce resources toward expanding modern networks which are critical to bringing economic opportunity, job creation, and civic engagement to all Americans.

    II. Background

    3. Section 220 of the Act requires the Commission to “prescribe a uniform system of accounts for use by telephone companies.” The Commission adopted its first accounting system in 1935 as parts 31 and 33 of the Commission's rules “when a rigid institutionalized regulatory environment was expected to continue forever.” In 1986, the Commission adopted the USOA contained in part 32 to respond to the “introduction of competition and an explosion of new products and services to which the existing systems could not respond without massive modification.”

    4. The Commission intended the USOA to “accommodate generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) to the extent regulatory considerations permit.” As the Commission explained: GAAP is that common set of accounting concepts, standards, procedures and conventions which are recognized by the accounting profession as a whole and upon which most nonregulated enterprises base their external financial statements and reports. It directs the recording of financial events and transactions and relates to how assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses are to be identified, measured, and reported. While part 32 specifies a chart of accounts and the types of transactions to be maintained in each account, GAAP allows companies to determine their own system of accounts subject to certain principles.

    5. The Commission adopted the USOA “at a time when regulators were required or inclined to organize telecommunications costs in a manner that allowed a logical mapping of these costs to telecommunications rate structures.” Accordingly, the USOA was designed to complement rate-of-return regulation and the system of tariffed interstate access charges that incumbent LECs were required to follow at that time. Part 32 required carriers to record their assets, expenses, and revenues in prescribed accounts. Part 64's cost assignment rules apportioned the investment, expenses, and revenues between regulated and nonregulated activities. Part 36 prescribed rules for separating regulated investment, expenses, and revenues between the interstate and intrastate jurisdictions. Part 69 then specified how carriers were to apportion costs assigned to the interstate jurisdiction among the interexchange service category and the access categories and rate elements. In other words, the access rates carriers charged were directly tied to the costs of the carriers, and thus the accurate recording of such costs in the USOA.

    6. From 1984 until 1991, virtually all interstate access services were subject to rate-of-return regulation, under which carriers' charges are set to cover an entity's regulated operating expenses and to provide the opportunity to earn a prescribed return on the capital the company uses to provide regulated services. Earnings were monitored through part 32 data that incumbent LECs filed annually through the Commission's Automated Reporting Management Information System (ARMIS). Future carriers' charges were adjusted if profit margins were above or below the prescribed rate of return.

    7. In 1991, the Commission adopted price cap regulation for the largest incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) while making it optional for other incumbents. Price cap regulation is a form of incentive regulation that relies on a series of Price Cap Indexes (PCIs) to limit the prices that these carriers charge for services to levels that are presumed to be just and reasonable. Today, more than 95 percent of access lines are served by price cap carriers.

    8. Price cap regulation eliminated the direct link between changes in allocated accounting costs and changes in price, but as originally implemented, it did not sever the connection between accounting costs and prices entirely. The 1991 LEC price cap plan required earnings above prescribed levels to be shared with ratepayers and provided for upward adjustment of PCIs if earnings fell below a prescribed level. LECs were also permitted to file above-cap rates if cost-based showings demonstrated that a rate within the cap would be confiscatory. In 1997, the Commission eliminated the sharing mechanism, and in 1999, the Commission eliminated the low-end adjustment for incumbent LECs that received and exercised pricing flexibility. This had the practical effect of severing the connection between prices and the need to account for costs from a regulatory point of view.

    9. In the years following passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission reviewed and streamlined its accounting rules on several occasions. In 1997, the Commission clarified that “only incumbent local exchange carriers” are subject to specific USOA requirements and other accounting rules. In 1999, the Commission “greatly streamline[d]” its depreciation requirements for price cap carriers, and established a waiver process whereby these carriers could obtain the ability to set their own depreciation rates in accordance with GAAP. In 2000, the Commission streamlined part 32 obligations by eliminating the expense matrix filing requirement, reducing the cost allocation manual audit requirement, relaxing certain affiliate transaction requirements for services, and eliminating the reclassification requirement for certain plant under construction. In 2001, it consolidated and streamlined Class A accounting requirements, relaxed additional aspects of the affiliate transaction rules, reduced the cost of regulatory compliance with cost allocation rules for mid-sized incumbent LECs, and reduced financial reporting requirements. And in 2008, the Commission forbore from applying its cost assignment rules and financial reporting rules to AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest, finding that its need for cost data had significantly diminished with continuing refinement of price cap ratemaking and universal service reforms.

    10. In 2012, USTelecom filed a petition pursuant to section 10 of the Act requesting that the Commission forbear from enforcing certain “legacy telecommunications regulations.” In the USTelecom Forbearance Order, the Commission extended the forbearance it had granted to AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest to other price cap carriers, but declined to forbear from applying the USOA to these carriers. Nevertheless, the Commission “acknowledge[d] that further streamlining of our rules is likely appropriate,” and promised to “conduct a comprehensive review of the Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts” with the aim of “minimiz[ing] the compliance burdens of our regulations while ensuring our continued access to the relevant financial information necessary to fulfill our duties.”

    11. On September 15, 2014, the Commission published the Comprehensive Review of Uniform System of Accounts, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 54942 (2014 NPRM), initiating the instant proceeding to reform its rules to ease the accounting burdens on carriers. First, the 2104 NPRM proposed to streamline the Commission's USOA accounting rules while preserving their existing structure. In this regard, the 2014 NPRM proposed to consolidate Class A and Class B accounts, to revise our rules regarding continuing property records for price cap carriers, and to better align with GAAP the USOA's asset accounting rules, its Allowance-for-Funds-Used-During-Construction (AFUDC) rules, its materiality rules, and its rules requiring that carriers submit all prior period adjustments (PPAs) and unusual or extraordinary items to the Commission for review and approval. It sought comment on whether to better align the USOA's depreciation and cost of removal-and-salvage accounting rules with GAAP. Second, the 2014 NPRM also sought focused comment on additional specific requirements that should be applied to price cap carriers. These included “eliminating the requirement that price cap carriers comply with the USOA and imposing targeted accounting requirements that fit our specific statutory needs.” Third, it sought comment on several related issues, including state requirements, rate effects, implementation, and legal authority. The Commission received ten comments and seven reply comments in response to the 2014 NPRM.

    II. Discussion

    12. In this Order, we make significant revisions to our part 32 USOA accounting rules and take a number of steps to substantially reduce the accounting burdens on incumbent LECs. First, we streamline the USOA for all carriers, amending 39 rules effective January 1, 2018. Second, we allow price cap carriers to elect to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes so long as they comply with targeted accounting rules. These additional reforms will eliminate burdensome accounting requirements that serve no federal purpose for electing price cap carriers.

    13. The reforms we adopt herein will significantly reduce the regulatory burdens associated with maintaining separate sets of financial accounts. As previously noted, while part 32 specifies a chart of accounts and the types of transactions to be maintained in each account, GAAP allows companies to determine their own system of accounts subject to certain principles in the form of an overarching system of broad accounting guidelines that address the recording of assets, liabilities, and stockholders' equity. Further, GAAP allows carriers to record financial transactions in a manner that reflects the broader nature of the enterprise, while part 32 compliance requires carriers to maintain two separate sets of financial and accounting books for federal regulatory purposes. Commenters emphasized the burdensome nature of this requirement, which we acknowledge here.

    A. Streamlining the USOA

    14. In this section, we adopt revisions to part 32 that significantly streamline the accounting requirements applicable to incumbent LECs. Specifically, we adopt our proposals to consolidate Class A and Class B accounts and to revise our rules regarding continuing property records for price cap carriers. We better align with GAAP the USOA's asset accounting rules, its AFUDC rules, and its materiality rules. And we decline to amend the USOA's depreciation and cost of removal-and-salvage rules. These revisions, with the exception of the continuing property records rules, will apply to all carriers subject to part 32's USOA, but not to any price cap carriers that elect to use GAAP accounting.

    1. Consolidating the Class A and Class B Accounts

    15. Part 32, as authorized by section 220(h) of the Act, divides incumbent LECs into two classes for accounting purposes based on annual revenues: Class A (carriers with annual revenues equal to or above $152.5 million) and Class B (smaller carriers). These rules require Class A carriers to generally maintain 138 accounts, which provide more detailed records of investment, expense, and revenue than the 80 accounts that smaller Class B carriers are required to maintain. When the Commission adopted this regime, it drew this line to “adopt a far less burdensome system” for smaller carriers—but one that was nevertheless sufficient to meet its statutory obligations. The Commission has gradually altered these requirements as regulatory needs and market conditions have changed.

    16. We now eliminate the classification of carriers, so that all carriers subject to part 32's USOA will be required to keep only the streamlined Class B accounts and will otherwise be treated as Class B carriers for purposes of part 32. Collapsing the distinction between Class A and Class B carriers will simplify our rules and reduce the number of accounts that Class A carriers must keep by one-third. Doing so will ensure a more uniform treatment of accounts for carriers subject to the USOA, simplifying both compliance for carriers and oversight by the Commission. Furthermore, we find that eliminating Class A treatment is sufficient to meet our regulatory needs, since no rate-of-return carrier (i.e., those where cost accounting is most important) is required by the Commission's rules today to keep Class A accounts.

    17. Ad Hoc disagrees, arguing that eliminating the distinction would prevent the Commission from carrying out its statutory duties. Ad Hoc argues that we should retain the Class A accounts for cable and wire facilities, depreciation, amortization, amortizable assets, and revenue reporting for the basic local exchange category that includes private line revenue because doing so has “obvious import, both for the setting of pole and conduit rates and for the ongoing special access proceeding.”

    18. Contrary to Ad Hoc's contentions, maintenance of accounts at the Class B level, coupled with the Commission's ability to require carriers to produce additional accounting data when there is an express federal need, will enable us to ensure that Class A carriers' rates are just and reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory. Indeed, no rate-of-return carrier currently qualifies as a Class A carrier, although the Commission's need for part 32 accounting data are unquestionably greater for carriers subject to rate-of-return regulation and legacy universal service mechanisms that tie federal support to a carrier's reported costs. And Ad Hoc offers nothing beyond mere assertions that the rates would differ in any material way with Class B treatment, and ignores the fact that the Commission neither relied on part 32 accounts when formulating its special access data collection nor relied on any existing part 32 Class A account in the 2014 NPRM. We accordingly find Ad Hoc's assertions speculative and baseless.

    19. Furthermore, we conclude that section 402(c) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not prohibit us from eliminating the distinction between Class A and Class B carriers. That section states that “[i]n classifying carriers according to section 32.11 of [the FCC's] regulations . . . the Commission shall adjust the revenue requirements to account for inflation . . . annually.” In the 2014 NPRM, the Commission did “not read this provision to require the Commission to classify carriers for purposes of Part 32 accounting rules, but instead to require annual adjustments so long as the Commission continues to classify carriers for these purposes.” The only party to address this issue agreed with this interpretation. We adopt it now.

    2. Continuing Property Records for Price Cap Carriers

    20. In the USTelecom Forbearance Order, the Commission concluded that forbearance from the continuing property records requirements in § 32.2000(e) and (f) was warranted for price cap carriers, as long as they could demonstrate in compliance plans how they would “maintain the records necessary to track substantial assets and investment in an accurate, auditable manner that enables them to verify account balances in their Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts, make such property information available to the Commission upon request, and ensure maintenance of such data.” In the 2014 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on memorializing these requirements in a rule. USTelecom supports requiring price cap carriers to maintain property records necessary to track substantial investments in an auditable fashion that enables verification and the ability to make such information available to the Commission upon request. These data can be maintained by utilizing GAAP, according to USTelecom. No party opposed the property records proposal advanced in the 2014 NPRM.

    21. As proposed in the 2014 NPRM, we revise part 32 to require price cap carriers with a continuing part 32 accounting obligation to maintain continuing property records necessary to track substantial assets and investments in an accurate, auditable manner that enables them to verify their accounting books, make such property information available to the Commission upon request, and ensure the maintenance of such data. This rule change reflects the expectations and commitments connected with the forbearance relief we granted in the USTelecom Forbearance Order.

    22. We decline at this time to require price cap carriers to file compliance plans, as proposed by the 2014 NPRM, to the extent they have not done so. No commenter addressed this issue. In the absence of record support for the proposal, we decline to adopt any compliance plan filing requirement.

    3. Aligning the USOA More Closely With GAAP

    23. In the 2014 NPRM, the Commission proffered several different proposals for aligning the USOA more closely with GAAP. We adopt the proposals to align with GAAP the USOA's asset accounting rules, its AFUDC rules, and its materiality rules. First, we align our definition of original cost to align with GAAP so that carriers carry an asset at its purchase price when it was acquired, even if its value has increased or has declined when it goes into regulated service. Second, we allow carriers to reprice an asset at market value after a merger or acquisition. The record is barren of evidence that these requirements for carriers to price assets differently than they would in the ordinary course of business retain any value.

    24. Third, we find that using GAAP principles to determine AFUDC should be the applicable standard. We revise the rules accordingly. As the Commission noted at the time, the resulting difference in accounting is immaterial from a regulatory perspective but may increase the administrative burdens of compliance for carriers otherwise required to meet GAAP standards.

    25. Fourth, we revise our rules to incorporate the concept of materiality. As USTelecom explains, “USOA has no materiality standard and requires all transactions be booked regardless of any materiality consideration. This forces carriers to justify every accounting discrepancy, no matter how trivial and immaterial, thereby adding unnecessary costs to the preparation and audit of a carrier's accounting records.” We agree and incorporate the GAAP standard of materiality for price cap carriers. We believe the flexible GAAP standard offers the “case-by-case” standard proposed by the Nevada Public Utilities Commission—and we agree with the state commission that the Commission will “ultimately be[] the arbiter” of whether a carrier has complied with GAAP's materiality standard.

    26. We also agree with Alexicon that “it would be beneficial to NECA and its pool members if the Commission adopted a definition of materiality that provided guidance related to NECA's review procedures.” Indeed, more particular guidance may be especially important for carriers receiving legacy universal service support because federal support is tied to the reported costs of such carriers. We adopt the general materiality guidelines promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board. Materiality levels are in large part a matter of professional judgment, and according to generally accepted auditing standards, may consider such factors as:

    (1) The elements of the financial statements (for example, assets, liabilities, equity, income, and expenses) and the financial statement measures defined in generally accepted accounting principles (for example, financial position, financial performance, and cash flows), or other specific requirements;

    (2) Where there are financial statement items on which, for the particular entity, users' attention tends to be focused (for example, for the purpose of evaluating financial performance);

    (3) The nature of the entity and the industry in which it operates; and

    (4) The size of the entity, nature of its ownership, and the way it is financed.

    Because independent auditors are required to undertake assessments of materiality and risk in all audit engagements, their judgment can and should be relied upon when determining materiality levels for purposes of regulatory reporting and review.

    27. In contrast, we decline at this time to revise the USOA's depreciation procedures or its rules for cost of removal-and-salvage accounting. As the Rural Associations argue, and we agree, revising USOA's depreciation rules might result in unpredictable changes in rates and universal service funding mechanisms—potentially rendering universal service support unpredictable absent further study. And we find the record too spare to quell the concern we recognized in the 2014 NPRM that changing the USOA's rules for cost of removal-and-salvage accounting could have a significant impact on pole attachment rates.

    28. We are unconvinced that the generic opposition in the record to the wholesale adoption of GAAP for rate-of-return carriers warrants rejecting the targeted reforms we adopt in this Section. Nor are we convinced by the Rural Associations' argument that no changes should be made to the USOA for rate-of-return carriers. The association does not identify any of the reforms we are adopting as significant, nor do we find based on the record any reason to think that these paperwork-reducing reforms will not be beneficial to rural carriers. Further, we do not anticipate any significant rate effects resulting from these efforts to further align the USOA with GAAP principles.

    B. Elective Use of Targeted Accounting Rules for Price Cap Carriers

    29. In the 2014 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on either maintaining the USOA for price cap carriers or replacing it with a more limited set of accounting rules targeted to our particular statutory needs. Based on developments in the market and the nature of telephone rate regulation, and in light of the record before us, we conclude that we should let price cap carriers elect to use targeted accounting rules in lieu of the strictures and the second set of books required by the USOA.

    30. Indeed, all evidence in the record demonstrates that continued application of the USOA to price cap carriers is a substantial and unjustifiable burden. ACS, for example, “incurs substantial and ongoing costs maintaining an entire second set of account books that meet the requirements of the USOA. The information they contain has no bearing on ACS's corporate planning, financial results, or service rates.” CenturyLink appends to its comments an appendix of the separate accounting entries it must maintain to comply with USOA and notes the “over 400 GAAP specific account codes” it must document so that its accountants can translate entries from one set of books to the other. And AT&T explains how it must pay software engineers up to $24 million a year to “bolt on” changes to vendor general ledger packages and to maintain the USOA on top of its existing GAAP-compliant accounts.

    31. We conclude that none of the three particular statutory obligations nor the regulatory requirement identified in the 2014 NPRM justify the requirement that price cap carriers comply with the USOA. Instead, we conclude that price cap carriers may elect to comply with GAAP accounting, subject to a commitment to mitigate any impact election would have on pole attachment rates. We address these four issues in turn.

    32. Pole Attachment Rates. Section 224 of the Act allows state commissions to regulate pole attachment rates so long as they certify to the Commission that they will do so; elsewhere, the Commission's rules apply. Under the Commission's rules, pole attachment rates are set in the first instance through private negotiation using cost data reported by carriers. Because many poles and conduits are owned by electric or other utilities not regulated by the Commission, our rules do not require all pole attachments to be based on USOA data, but instead require that the “data and information should be based upon historical or original methodology” and “should be derived from ARMIS, FERC 1, or other reports filed with state or federal regulatory agencies.” For incumbent LECs, however, the Commission has relied on data from “various Part 32 accounts (e.g., gross pole investment, gross plant investment, accumulated depreciation—poles, maintenance expense—poles etc.).” And the Commission has used the USOA data to modify the formula by which pole attachment rates are calculated.

    33. USTelecom and AT&T contend that for price cap carriers, the use of a rate-of-return-based formula for pole attachments does not preclude the use of GAAP. Verizon agrees with USTelecom, contending that the formulae used to derive pole attachment rates could be populated with GAAP-based data. USTelecom also argues that there is no evidence that relying upon GAAP would alter rates price cap carriers charge for pole attachments, while AT&T contends that there is no basis to believe that pole attachment rates calculated based on GAAP accounting would not be just and reasonable. ACS also supports allowing price cap carriers to use GAAP. CenturyLink proposes to address concerns about possible harms to pole attachment users during a transition to the use of GAAP by capping pole attachment rates at their current levels plus an annual inflation adjustment in states subject to federal regulation, except to the extent that rate increases are justified. On the other hand, NCTA urges the Commission to continue compliance with part 32 accounting in connection with pole attachment data, while NASUCA argues that targeted accounting requirements would be more complicated and costly than maintaining the current mechanisms.

    34. We find that USOA accounting data are not necessary for the continued development of pole attachment rates in accordance with the statute. Nothing in section 224 directs or requires us to rely on the USOA, and we see no reason to subject one set of pole and conduit owners to onerous accounting obligations just because they happen to operate in a federal-default state or happened to have provided telephone service 21 years ago. Nor is there any reason to think the continued maintenance of USOA data for pole attachments is necessary for any future reforms. The Commission successfully collected data from hundreds of carriers on demand in the special access proceeding, and it could require similar disclosure of pole attachment costs if the need should arise.

    35. Nonetheless, we share the concern of some commenters that a change in accounting rules could lead to rate shock—a large swing in rates as price cap carriers transition from one accounting system to another. This possible rate differential is due to a number of factors, such as depreciation rates, cost of removal, and return on investment. Pole attachment rates play a significant role in the deployment and availability of voice, video, and data networks, and sharp changes in pole attachment rates may distort infrastructure investment decisions and in turn could negatively affect the availability of advanced services and broadband, contrary to the policy goals of the Act.

    36. As such, we condition any price cap carrier's election of GAAP accounting on compliance with one of two framework options to mitigate any disruption in pole attachment rates from the election. The first option is for electing carriers to calculate an Implementation Rate Difference between the attachment rates calculated by the price cap carrier under the USOA and under GAAP as of the last full year preceding the carrier's initial opting-out of part 32 USOA accounting requirements. We further require electing carriers to adjust their annually computed GAAP-based rates by the Implementation Rate Difference for a period of 12 years after the election. This framework largely parallels the plan offered by industry representatives to mitigate any pole attachment rate increases due to fluctuations and timing differences associated with the treatment of depreciation rates, the cost of removal, and salvage when GAAP is utilized instead of part 32. It relies on the half-life of a typical pole to establish the 12-year term (as a means of ensuring against double recovery). We find this option is an appropriate means of mitigating rate shock to attaching ISPs while still allowing the price cap carrier to shed its USOA obligations.

    37. As a second option, price cap carriers may comply with GAAP accounting for all purposes other than those associated with setting pole attachment rates while continuing to use the part 32 accounts and procedures necessary to establish and evaluate pole attachment rates. Carriers have a period of 12 years in which they can opt into GAAP accounting for pole attachment rates and would be required to utilize the Implementation Rate Difference for the remaining portion of the 12 years after they have chosen to move to GAAP accounting. We find that this approach offers flexibility for price cap carriers who do not wish to immediately transition to GAAP for purposes of setting pole attachment rates.

    38. We emphasize that a shift in accounting methodology (here, from USOA to GAAP) does not change what costs may be included in pole attachment rates—instead, it changes only how and when those costs are recognized. We thus expect that shifting the accounting method is unlikely to result in abrupt changes in pole attachment rates in the near term, and that rates will remain steady over the long-run. Price cap carriers have explained that shifting accounting methods is “not an effort to increase pole attachment rates” and “not an attempt to do some other rate- or cost-shifting,” and we intend to monitor pole attachment rates and hold them to that promise.

    39. Finally, to facilitate transparency of pole attachment rates during the transition from USOA to GAAP, a pole attacher may request that a price cap carrier submit its pole attachment accounting data for a particular state to this Commission for three years following the effective date of the rule permitting a price cap carrier to elect GAAP accounting. Thus, if a pole attacher informs the Commission of a suspected problem with pole attachment rates, the Commission will require the price cap carrier to file its pole attachment data for the state in question. This requirement will assist the parties and the Commission in monitoring and evaluating any abrupt rate changes that may occur. If it proves necessary, the Commission may extend this obligation for an additional three years.

    40. Other Issues. We conclude that USOA accounting data is unnecessary to ensure compliance with section 254(k) of the Act, which prohibits a telecommunications carrier from “us[ing] services that are not competitive to subsidize services that are subject to competition.” As the 2014 NPRM explained, the Commission has never found it necessary to seek accounting data to address allegations of violations of section 254(k). In other words, USOA data have not been needed to ensure compliance with section 254(k), even right after the end of legal telephone service monopolies in the late 1990s. Given the advent of even more intermodal competition, we do not foresee a need for USOA data to resolve any section 254(k) violations going forward.

    41. The Commission also sought comment on whether the harm intended to be addressed by section 272(e)(3) continues to be a concern, or whether the Commission should consider forbearing from this requirement. In the record, the BOCs primarily focused on alternatives to antiquated part 32 accounting, rather than addressing forbearance from section 272(e)(3). In evaluating the lack of utility of part 32 accounting rules, our attention is also focused on regulatory requirements such as section 272(e)(3) that, similar to the USOA, have outgrown their usefulness.

    42. Before 1996, the BOCs were prohibited from entering the long-distance market (i.e., from offering interexchange service) out of concern that they could use their local monopoly to subsidize competitive operations in the long-distance market. The Telecommunications Act created a path for the BOCs to enter that market, requiring, among other things, that a BOC that offers its long-distance service to “impute to itself . . . an amount for access to its telephone exchange service and exchange access that is no less than the amount charged to any unaffiliated interexchange carriers for such service.”

    43. We conclude that we should forbear from the continued application of section 272(e)(3)'s imputation requirements. No party commented on whether the Commission should forbear. The rationales for removing the accounting requirements associated with section 272(e)(3) are equally applicable to considerations of forbearing from the requirements of the subsection completely. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission placed terminating intercarrier compensation charges on a path toward bill-and-keep, which greatly diminishes the need for imputation charges. Furthermore, many other entities provide integrated long-distance service, such as non-BOC LECs, cable operators, over-the-top voice over Internet Protocol companies, and commercial mobile radio service providers; these entities are not required to impute charges between their local and long-distance affiliates (to the extent they even offer those services through separate affiliates). In the last 20 years, increased competition in access markets as a result of legislative, regulatory, and technological changes has reduced the need for section 272 imputation requirements to prevent cross-subsidization between incumbent LECs' local and long distance services. Thus, continued enforcement of the section 272(e)(3) imputation requirements is not necessary to ensure that the charges, practices, classifications, or regulations by, for, or in connection with that telecommunications carrier or telecommunications service are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Given these changes in the regulatory landscape and the diminished importance of imputation requirements to prevent marketplace harms, section 272(e)(3) is not necessary for the protection of consumers, and forbearance will be in the public interest. Accordingly, we determine that forbearing from the continued application of these requirements is appropriate.

    44. Finally, we terminate the conditions that the Commission placed on a variety of carriers granted forbearance from our cost allocation rules. Forbearance was expressly premised on the continued availability of part 32 accounting data and the filing of compliance plans consistent with that condition. AT&T, Qwest and Verizon filed compliance plans that detailed their commitment to continue to maintain part 32 accounting data. In the 2014 NPRM, the Commission invited parties to comment on how changes to the part 32 requirements would affect the commitments made in compliance plans filed in connection with forbearance proceedings. Commenters directly addressing this issue support the action taken herein. Although we speculated in 2013 that “there may be a `federal need for this accounting information in the future to adjust our existing price cap regime or in our consideration of reforms moving forward,'” time has proven that prediction untrue. And continuing to maintain these costly requirements on the speculation that at some point, some day, the Commission might do something with them fails any cost-benefit analysis.

    C. Other Considerations

    45. We decline requests to reconsider other deregulatory actions by the Commission in this proceeding. NASUCA broadly argues that it opposes the rationale behind the 2014 NPRM because the Commission has already minimized the compliance burden below the level needed for its regulatory duties, and urges the Commission to reverse course on other information requirements, pointing to ARMIS forbearance and other recent forbearance decisions. The issues NASUCA raises are rejected as being overly vague and beyond the scope of the 2014 NPRM. In any event, NASUCA has not presented sufficient support for its arguments to allow the Commission to act on these requests, instead merely stating its objections to the proposed reforms in a conclusory manner and failing to suggest concrete alternative solutions.

    IV. Referral to the Joint Board

    46. We recognize that eliminating the distinctions between Class A and Class B accounts and allowing all carriers to utilize the more streamlined requirements of Class B accounts has implications for the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules pursuant to part 36. For instance, many of the separations rules also designate accounts by Class A and Class B categories, and those rules likely would need to be modified to be consistent with the revised part 32 regulations. Accordingly, pursuant to section 410(c) of the Act, we refer to the Joint Board the issue of examining jurisdictional separations rules in light of the reforms adopted to the part 32 regulations in this Report and Order. We ask the Joint Board to consider the reforms adopted in this Report and Order and to consider how such reforms impact part 36 and consequently the rule changes necessary to ensure the jurisdictional separations rules are consistent. We request that the Joint Board prepare a recommended decision within nine months of publication in the Federal Register regarding how and when the Commission's jurisdictional separations rules should be modified to reflect the issues in the referral.

    V. Procedural Matters A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the 2014 NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the possible significant economic impact on small entities regarding the proposals in the 2014 NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) is set forth in Appendix C of the Commission's Report and Order, WC Docket No. 14-130, CC Docket No. 80-286; FCC 17-15, adopted February 23, 2017 and released February 24, 2017.

    B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    48. This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. The requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    49. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of our streamlining the part 32 USOA accounting rules and find that the Commission's actions will result in overall reduced regulatory burdens for both price cap and rate-of-return carriers, including small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, the Report and Order allows price cap carriers to elect to use GAAP for all regulatory accounting purposes so long as they comply with targeted accounting rules. Because incumbent LECs subject to price cap regulation are among the largest of telecommunications companies, we do not anticipate any impact from this action on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

    C. Congressional Review Act

    50. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    VI. Ordering Clauses

    51. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 10, 201, 219-220, 224, 254(k), 272(e)(3), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 160, 201, 219-220, 224, 254(k), 272(e)(3), 403, this Report and Order is adopted.

    52. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 10, 201, 219-220, 224, 254(k), 272(e)(3), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 160, 201, 219-220, 224, 254(k), 272(e)(3), 403, 47 CFR parts 1, 32, and 65, are amended, effective on a date (“Effective Date”) following publication in the Federal Register of a document announcing approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of these rules, which contain requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, or on January 1, 2018, whichever is later, with the exception of amendments to §§ 1.1409 and 32.1, which the Effective Date shall be following publication in the Federal Register of a document announcing approval by OMB of these amendments.

    53. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    54. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    55. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 410(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. 410(c), the issues specified in Section IV of this Report and Order are hereby referred to the Federal-State Joint Board on Separations for preparation of a recommended decision to be produced within nine months of publication in the Federal Register.

    56. It is further ordered that, should no petitions for reconsideration, applications for review, or petitions for judicial review be timely filed, this proceeding shall be terminated and its docket closed.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 32, and 65

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telephone, Uniform system of accounts.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 32, and 65 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j), 160, 201, 225, 303, and 309.

    2. Section 1.791 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.791 Reports and requests to be filed under part 32 of this chapter.

    Reports and requests shall be filed either periodically, upon the happening of specified events, or for specific approval by telephone companies in accordance with and subject to the provisions of part 32 of this chapter.

    3. Section 1.1409 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 1.1409 Commission consideration of the complaint.

    (g) A price cap company opting-out of part 32 of this chapter may calculate attachment rates for its poles, conduits, and rights of way using either part 32 accounting data or GAAP accounting data. A price cap company using GAAP accounting data to compute rates to attach to its poles, conduits, and rights of way in any of the first twelve years after opting-out must adjust (increase or decrease) its annually computed GAAP-based rates by an Implementation Rate Difference for each of the remaining years in the period. The Implementation Rate Difference means the difference between attachment rates calculated by the price cap carrier under part 32 and under GAAP as of the last full year preceding the carrier's initial opting-out of part 32 USOA accounting requirements.

    PART 32—UNIFORM SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES
    4. The authority citation for part 32 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 219, 220 as amended, unless otherwise noted.

    5. Section 32.1 is revised to read as follow:
    § 32.1 Background.

    The revised Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) is a historical financial accounting system which reports the results of operational and financial events in a manner which enables both management and regulators to assess these results within a specified accounting period. The USOA also provides the financial community and others with financial performance results. In order for an accounting system to fulfill these purposes, it must exhibit consistency and stability in financial reporting (including the results published for regulatory purposes). Accordingly, the USOA has been designed to reflect stable, recurring financial data based to the extent regulatory considerations permit upon the consistency of the well established body of accounting theories and principles commonly referred to as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Price cap companies that have opted-out of USOA requirements pursuant to the conditions specified by the Commission in § 32.11(g) are relieved of the rules of this part in their entirety, including any other rules or orders that are derivative of or dependent on the rules in this part.

    § 32.3 [Removed and Reserved]
    6. Section 32.3 is removed and reserved. 7. Section 32.11 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a), removing and reserving paragraphs (b) though (f), and adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 32.11 Companies subject to this part.

    (a) This part applies to every incumbent local exchange carrier, as defined in section 251(h) of the Communications Act, and any other carrier that the Commission designates by order. This part refers to such carriers as “companies” or “Class B companies.” Incumbent local exchange carriers' successor or assign companies, as defined in section 251(h)(1)(B)(ii) of the Communications Act, that are found to be non-dominant by the Commission, will not be subject to this Uniform System of Accounts.

    (g) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, a price cap company that elects to calculate its pole attachment rates pursuant to § 1.1409(g) of this chapter will not be subject to this Uniform System of Accounts.

    8. Section 32.26 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.26 Materiality.

    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, companies may abide by the materiality standards of GAAP when implementing this system of accounts.

    (b) For companies that receive High-Cost Loop Support, or Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support, materiality shall be determined consistent with the general materiality guidelines promulgated by the Auditing Standards Board.

    9. Section 32.101 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 32.101 Structure of the balance sheet accounts.

    (c) Account 3100, Accumulated depreciation through Account 3400, Accumulated amortization—tangible, shall include the asset reserves except that reserves related to certain asset accounts will be included in the asset account. (See §§ 32.2005, 32.2682 and 32.2690.)

    10. Section 32.103 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.103 Balance sheet accounts for other than regulated-fixed assets to be maintained.

    Balance sheet accounts to be maintained by companies for other than regulated-fixed assets are indicated as follows:

    Balance Sheet Accounts Account title Current assets Cash and equivalents 1120 Receivables 1170 Allowance for doubtful accounts 1171 Supplies: Material and supplies 1220 Prepayments 1280 Other current assets 1350 Noncurrent assets Investments: Nonregulated investments 1406 Other noncurrent assets 1410 Deferred charges: Deferred maintenance, retirements and other deferred charges 1438 Other: Other jurisdictional assets-net 1500
    11. Section 32.2000 is amended by: a. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(4); b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2)(iii), and (c)(2)(x); c. Adding paragraph (e)(8); and d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(iii) and (j).

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 32.2000 Instructions for telecommunications plant accounts.

    (a) * * *

    (4) [Reserved]

    (b) * * *

    (1) Property, plant and equipment acquired from an entity, whether or not affiliated with the accounting company, shall be accounted for at original cost, except that property, plant and equipment acquired from a nonaffiliated entity through an acquisition or merger may be accounted for at market value at the time of the acquisition or merger.

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Accumulated Depreciation and amortization balances related to plant acquired shall be credited to Account 3100, Accumulated depreciation, or Account 3200, Accumulated depreciation—held for future telecommunications use, or Account 3400, Accumulated amortization—tangible and debited to Account 1438. Accumulated amortization balances related to plant acquired which ultimately is recorded in Accounts 2005, Telecommunications plant adjustment, Account 2682, Leasehold improvements, or Account 2690, Intangibles shall be credited to these asset accounts, and debited to Account 1438.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (x) Allowance for funds used during construction (“AFUDC”) provides for the cost of financing the construction of telecommunications plant. AFUDC shall be charged to Account 2003, Telecommunications plant under construction, and credited to Account 7300, Nonoperating income and expense. The rate for calculating AFUDC shall be determined in accordance with GAAP when implementing this system of accounts. The amount of interest cost capitalized in an accounting period shall not exceed the total amount of interest cost incurred by the company in that period.

    (e) * * *

    (8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part concerning continuing property records, carriers subject to price cap regulations set forth in part 61 of this chapter shall maintain property records necessary to track substantial assets and investments in an accurate, auditable manner that enables them to verify their accounting books, make such property information available to the Commission upon request, and ensure the maintenance of such data.

    (f) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) The continuing property record shall reveal the description, location, date of placement, the essential details of construction, and the original cost (note also paragraph (f)(3) of this section) of the property record units. The continuing property records shall be compiled on the basis of original cost (or other book cost consistent with this system of accounts) and maintained in such manner as will provide for the verification of property record units by physical examination. The continuing property record and other underlying records of construction costs shall be so maintained that, upon retirement of one or more retirement units or of minor items without replacement when not included in the costs of retirement units, the actual cost or a reasonably accurate estimate of the cost of the plant retired can be determined.

    (j) Plant accounts to be maintained by telephone companies as indicated:

    Account title Regulated plant Property, plant and equipment: Telecommunications plant in service 1 2001 Property held for future telecommunications use 2002 Telecommunications plant under construction-short term 2003 Telecommunications plant adjustment 2005 Nonoperating plant 2006 Goodwill 2007 Telecommunications plant in service (TPIS) TPIS—General support assets: Land and support assets 2110 TPIS—Central Office assets: Central Office—switching 2210 Operator systems 2220 Central Office—transmission 2230 TPIS—Information origination/termination assets: Information origination termination 2310 TPIS—Cable and wire facilities assets: Cable and wire facilities 2410 TPIS—Amortizable assets: Amortizable tangible assets 2680 Intangibles 2690 1 Balance sheet summary account only.
    12. Section 32.2110 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2110 Land and support assets.

    This account shall be used by companies to record the original cost of land and support assets of the type and character detailed in Accounts 2111 through 2124.

    13. Section 32.2210 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2210 Central office—switching.

    This account shall be used by companies to record the original cost of switching assets of the type and character detailed in Accounts 2211 through 2212.

    14. Section 32.2230 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2230 Central office—transmission.

    This account shall be used by companies to record the original cost of radio systems and circuit equipment of the type and character detailed in Accounts 2231 and 2232.

    15. Section 32.2310 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2310 Information origination/termination.

    This account shall be used by companies to record the original cost of information origination/termination equipment of the type and character detailed in Accounts 2311 through 2362.

    16. Section 32.2410 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2410 Cable and wire facilities.

    This account shall be used by companies to record the original cost of cable and wire facilities of the type and character detailed in Accounts 2411 through 2441.

    17. Section 32.2680 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.2680 Amortizable tangible assets.

    This account shall be used by companies to record amounts for property acquired under capital leases and the original cost of leasehold improvements of the type of character detailed in Accounts 2681 and 2682.

    § 32.2682 [Amended]
    18. Section 32.2682 is amended by removing the last sentence in paragraph (c).
    § 32.2690 [Amended]
    19. Section 32.2690 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b). 20. Section 32.3000 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.3000 Instructions for balance sheet accounts—depreciation and amortization.

    (a) Depreciation and amortization subsidiary records. (1) Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained for each class of depreciable telecommunications plant in Account 3100 for which there is a prescribed depreciation rate. (See also § 32.2000(g)(1)(iii).)

    (2) Subsidiary records shall be maintained for Accounts 2005, 2682, 2690, 3400 in accordance with § 32.2000(h)(4).

    (b) Depreciation and amortization accounts to be maintained by telephone companies, as indicated.

    Account title Depreciation and amortization: Accumulated depreciation 3100 Accumulated depreciation—Held for future telecommunications use 3200 Accumulated depreciation—Nonoperating 3300 Accumulated depreciation—Tangible 3400
    21. Section 32.3400 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 32.3400 Accumulated amortization—tangible.

    (a) This account shall include:

    22. Section 32.3999 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.3999 Instructions for balance sheet accounts—liabilities and stockholders' equity. Liabilities and Stockholders' Equity Accounts To Be Maintained by Companies Account title Current liabilities: Current accounts and notes payable 4000 Customer's Deposits 4040 Income taxes—accrued 4070 Other taxes—accrued 4080 Net Current Deferred Nonoperating Income Taxes 4100 Net Current Deferred Nonoperating Income Taxes 4110 Other current liabilities 4130 Long-term debt: Long Term debt and Funded debt 4200 Other liabilities and deferred credits: Other liabilities and deferred credits 4300 Unamortized operating investment tax credits—net 4320 Unamortized nonoperating investment tax credits—net 4330 Net noncurrent deferred operating income taxes 4340 Net deferred tax liability adjustments 4341 Net noncurrent deferred nonoperating income taxes 4350 Deferred tax regulatory adjustments—net 4361 Other jurisdictional liabilities and deferred credits—net 4370 Stockholder's equity: Capital stock 4510 Additional paid-in capital 4520 Treasury stock 4530 Other capital 4540 Retained earnings 4550
    23. Section 32.4999 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) and (n) to read as follows:
    § 32.4999 General.

    (f) Subsidiary records—jurisdictional subdivisions and interconnection. Subsidiary record categories shall be maintained in order that the company may separately report revenues derived from charges imposed under intrastate, interstate and international tariff filings. Such subsidiary record categories shall be reported as required by part 43 of this chapter.

    (n) Revenue accounts to be maintained.

    Account title Local network services revenues: Basic local service revenue Network access service revenues: End user revenue 5081 Switched access revenue 5082 Special access revenue 5083 Long distance network services revenues: Long distance message revenue 5100 Miscellaneous revenues: Miscellaneous revenue 5200 Nonregulated revenues: Nonregulated operating revenue 5280 Uncollectible revenues: Uncollectible revenue 5300
    24. Section 32.5000 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.5000 Basic local service revenue.

    Companies shall use this account for revenues of the type and character detailed in Accounts 5001 through 5060.

    25. Section 32.5200 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:
    § 32.5200 Miscellaneous revenue.

    This account shall include revenue derived from the following sources, as well as revenue of the type and character detailed in Account 5230, Directory revenue.

    26. Section 32.5999 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 32.5999 General.

    (g) Expense accounts to be maintained.

    Account title Income Statement Accounts Plant specific operations expense: Network support expense 6110 General support expenses 6120 Central office switching expense 6210 Operators system expense 6220 Central office transmission expenses 6230 Information origination/termination expense 6310 Cable and wire facilities expenses 6410 Plant nonspecific operations expense: Other property plant and equipment expenses 6510 Network operations expenses 6530 Access expense 6540 Depreciation and amortization expenses 6560 Customer operations expense: Marketing 6610 Services 6620 Corporate operations expense: General and administrative 6720 Provision for uncollectible notes receivable 6790
    27. Section 32.6110 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6110 Network support expenses.

    (a) Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6112 through 6114.

    (b) Credits shall be made to this account by companies for amounts transferred to Construction and/or other Plant Specific Operations Expense accounts. These amounts shall be computed on the basis of direct labor hours.

    28. Section 32.6120 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6120 General support expenses.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6121 through 6124.

    29. Section 32.6230 is amended to read:
    § 32.6230 Central office transmission expense.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6231 and 6232.

    30. Section 32.6310 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6310 Information origination/termination expenses.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6311 through 6362.

    31. Section 32.6410 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6410 Cable and wire facilities expenses.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6411 through 6441.

    32. Section 32.6510 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6510 Other property, plant and equipment expenses.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6511 and 6512.

    33. Section 32.6530 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6530 Network operations expense.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6531 through 6535.

    34. Section 32.6560 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6560 Depreciation and amortization expenses.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6561 through 6565.

    35. Section 32.6610 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6610 Marketing.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6611 through 6613.

    36. Section 32.6620 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6620 Services.

    Companies shall use this account for expenses of the type and character detailed in Accounts 6621 through 6623.

    37. Section 32.6999 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.6999 General.

    (a) Structure of the other income accounts. The other income accounts are designed to reflect both operating and nonoperating income items including taxes, extraordinary items and other income and expense items not properly included elsewhere.

    (b) Other income accounts listing.

    Account title Other operating income and expense: Other operating income and expense 7100 Operating taxes: Operating taxes 7200 Nonoperating income and expense: Nonoperating income and expense 7300 Nonoperating taxes: Nonoperating taxes 7400 Interest and related items: Interest and related items 7500 Extraordinary items 7600 Jurisdictional differences and non-regulated income items: Income effect of jurisdictional ratemaking difference—net 7910 Nonregulated net income 7990
    38. Section 32.7200 is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.7200 Operating taxes.

    Companies shall use this account for operating taxes of the type and character detailed in Accounts 7210 through 7250.

    39. Section 32.9000 is amended by revising the definition of “Original cost” to read as follows:
    § 32.9000 Glossary of terms.

    Original cost or cost, as applied to telecommunications plant, rights of way and other intangible property, means the actual money cost of (or the current money value of any consideration other than money exchanged for) property at the time when it was purchased.

    PART 65—INTERSTATE RATE OF RETURN PRESCRIPTION, PROCEDURES, AND METHODOLOGIES 40. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 254, 303(r), 403, and 1302 unless otherwise noted.

    41. The heading for part 65 is revised to read as set forth above. 42. Section 65.810 is revised to read as follows:
    § 65.810 Definitions.

    As used in this subpart “account xxxx” means the account of that number kept in accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts for Telecommunications Companies in 47 CFR part 32.

    43. Section 65.820 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 65.820 Included items.

    (d) Cash working capital. The average amount of investor-supplied capital needed to provide funds for a carrier's day-to-day interstate operations. Carriers may calculate a cash working capital allowance either by performing a lead-lag study of interstate revenue and expense items or by using the formula set forth in paragraph (e) of this section. Carriers, in lieu of performing a lead-lag study or using the formula in paragraph (e) of this section, may calculate the cash working capital allowance using a standard allowance which will be established annually by the Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau. When either the lead-lag study or formula method is used to calculate cash working capital, the amount calculated under the study or formula may be increased by minimum bank balances and working cash advances to determine the cash working capital allowance. Once a carrier has selected a method of determining its cash working capital allowance, it shall not change to an optional method from one year to the next without Commission approval.

    [FR Doc. 2017-07175 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    82 85 Thursday, May 4, 2017 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Office of the Secretary 6 CFR Part 5 [Docket No. DHS-2017-0002] Privacy Act of 1974: Implementation of Exemptions; Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “Department of Homeland Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records” and this proposed rulemaking. In this proposed rulemaking, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0002 by one of the following methods:

    Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amber Smith, Privacy Officer, (202-732-3300), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536, email: [email protected], or Jonathan R. Cantor (202-343-1717), Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is giving concurrent notice of a newly established system of records pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 for the “DHS/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records” and this proposed rule. In this rule, the Department proposes to exempt portions of the system of records from one or more provisions of the Privacy Act because of criminal, civil, and administrative enforcement requirements.

    The FALCON Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA) System of Records describes the operation of an ICE information technology system of the same name, which is owned by ICE's Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). This system contains a repository of data that is ingested on a routine or ad hoc basis from other existing sources, and an index created from that data. FALCON-SA incorporates tools that allow the data to be queried, analyzed, and presented in a variety of formats that can help illuminate relationships among the various data elements. The purpose of FALCON-SA is to help ICE HSI personnel conduct research and analysis using advanced analytic tools in support of their law enforcement mission.

    FALCON Overview

    In 2012, ICE HSI created a new IT environment called “FALCON” to support ICE's law enforcement and criminal investigative missions. The FALCON environment is designed to permit ICE law enforcement and homeland security personnel to search and analyze data ingested from other Government applications and systems while employing appropriate user access restrictions at the data element level and robust user auditing controls.

    In February 2012, ICE deployed the first module of FALCON with the launch of FALCON-SA. FALCON-SA enables ICE law enforcement and homeland security personnel to search, analyze, and visualize volumes of existing information in support of ICE's mission to enforce and investigate violations of U.S. criminal, civil, and administrative laws. ICE agents, criminal research specialists, and intelligence analysts use FALCON-SA to conduct research that supports the production of law enforcement intelligence products; provides lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up; assists in the conduct of ICE criminal, civil, and administrative investigations; assists in the disruption of terrorist or other criminal activity; and discovers previously unknown connections among existing ICE investigations. ICE's use of the system is always predicated on homeland security, law enforcement, and/or intelligence activities. FALCON-SA is an internal system used only by ICE.

    Since the launch of FALCON-SA, ICE has created other user interfaces, including FALCON-Tip Line, FALCON-DARTTS, and FALCON-Roadrunner, under the FALCON umbrella. Like FALCON-SA, these other interfaces also use data maintained in the FALCON general data storage environment. This environment is where FALCON data is aggregated and user access is controlled through a combination of data tagging, access control lists, and other technologies. Using a central data store for FALCON data eliminates the need for multiple copies of the data and streamlines the application of many security and privacy controls. Only data accessed via FALCON-SA is covered by the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records Notice (SORN). However, the other interfaces are covered by other ICE SORNs, as specified in the System Location section of the SORN. Separate SORNs are appropriate because the data, purposes, and routine uses differ for each FALCON interface.

    FALCON-SA Data

    Information included in FALCON-SA is ingested either on a routine or ad hoc basis. Routine ingests are regular updates to datasets that originate from other Government (typically ICE or DHS) data systems. A list of routine ingests into the FALCON general data storage environment that are accessible via FALCON-SA is available in the FALCON-SA Privacy Impact Assessment at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    Ad hoc ingests are user-driven ingests of particular data that may be relevant to a given user or group's investigative or analytical project in FALCON-SA. The nature of the data in ad hoc ingests varies from data collected from a commercial or public source (e.g., Internet research or from a commercial data service such as CLEAR), to public reports of law enforcement violations or suspicious activity (tips), to digital records seized or subpoenaed during an investigation. All ad hoc ingests are tagged by the FALCON-SA user with the appropriate category description, and that tag drives the retention policy for that data. The ad hoc ingest category description list is included in the FALCON-SA Privacy Impact Assessment at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    FALCON-SA records may include some or all of the following types of personally identifiable information: Identifying and biographical data such as name and date of birth, citizenship and immigration data, border crossing data, customs import-export history, criminal history, contact information, criminal associates, family relationships, photographs and other media, and employment and education information.

    FALCON-SA also contains an index, which is a numerical and alphabetical list of every word or string of numbers/characters found in the FALCON-SA database, with a reference to the electronic location where the corresponding source record is stored. FALCON-SA uses this index to conduct searches, identify relationships and links between records and data, and generate visualizations for analytic purposes. FALCON-SA also contains metadata that is created when ingesting data. The metadata is used to apply access controls and other system rules (such as retention policies) to the contents of FALCON-SA. The metadata also provides important contextual information about the date the information was added to FALCON-SA and the source system from where the data originated.

    The data sets in FALCON-SA include tips submitted to ICE either through an online form on the ICE Web site or by calling the HSI Tip Line. These tips are generally created electronically using the FALCON-Tip Line interface. Alternatively, they may be manually entered by HSI's Cyber Crimes Center when the tips pertain to child exploitation crimes. Once HSI adjudicates the tips for action, they are then accessible to all HSI users via the FALCON-SA interface.

    Uses of FALCON-SA

    ICE HSI agents, criminal research specialists, and intelligence analysts query FALCON-SA for a variety of purposes: To conduct research that supports the production of law enforcement intelligence products; to provide lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up; to assist in the conduct of ICE criminal, civil, and administrative investigations; to assist in the disruption of terrorist or other criminal activity; and to discover previously unknown connections among existing ICE investigations. These queries can be saved in FALCON-SA to eliminate the need to recreate them each time a user logs on.

    Strong access controls and a robust audit function ensure that ICE's use of the system is predicated on homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence activities. This requirement is enforced by a governance group composed of leadership from HSI with oversight by ICE's legal, privacy, and civil liberties offices.

    While ICE previously relied on the DHS/ICE-006 ICE Intelligence Records System (IIRS) SORN, last published at 75 FR 9233 (Mar. 1, 2010), to maintain FALCON-SA records, ICE recently determined a separate system of records notice will provide greater transparency and allow ICE to more accurately describe the records accessible via FALCON-SA. FALCON-Tip Line records were previously covered by the DHS/ICE-007 Alien Criminal Response Information Management (ACRIMe) SORN, but the FALCON-SA SORN will now cover those records instead. This change is due to Tip Line records having migrated out of the ACRIMe system into the FALCON environment and that once created, the official repository for FALCON-Tip Line records is the FALCON general data storage environment.

    This SORN will cover data that is accessible via FALCON-SA's user interface only, and does not cover data that is accessed via other FALCON interfaces, such as Roadrunner and DARTTS, which are covered by the DHS/ICE-005 Trade Transparency and Analysis Records (TTAR) SORN.

    Additional information about FALCON-SA can be found in the Privacy Impact Assessments published for FALCON-SA and FALCON-Tip Line, available at http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-ice.

    Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the FALCON-SA SORN may be shared with other DHS components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, information may be shared with appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in the system of records notice.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.

    The Privacy Act allows Government agencies to exempt certain records from the access and amendment provisions. If an agency claims an exemption, however, it must issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to make clear to the public the reasons why a particular exemption is claimed.

    DHS is claiming exemptions from certain requirements of the Privacy Act for DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records. Some information this system of records relates to official DHS national security, law enforcement, immigration, and intelligence activities. These exemptions are needed to protect information relating to DHS activities from disclosure to subjects or others related to these activities. Specifically, the exemptions are required to preclude subjects of these activities from frustrating these processes; to avoid disclosure of activity techniques; to protect the identities and physical safety of confidential informants and law enforcement personnel; to ensure DHS retains the ability to obtain information from third parties and other sources; and to protect the privacy of third parties. Disclosure of information to the subject of the inquiry could also permit the subject to avoid detection or apprehension.

    In appropriate circumstances, when compliance would not appear to interfere with or adversely affect the law enforcement purposes of this system and the overall law enforcement process, the applicable exemptions may be waived on a case by case basis.

    A system of records notice for DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records is also published in this issue of the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5

    Freedom of information; Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; E.O. 13392.

    2. Add new paragraph 77 at the end of appendix C to read as follows: Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of Records Exempt From the Privacy Act

    77. The DHS/ICE-016 FALCON Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA) System of Records consists of electronic and paper records and will be used by ICE law enforcement and homeland security personnel. The DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records contains aggregated data from ICE and DHS law enforcement and homeland security IT systems, as well as data uploaded by ICE personnel for analysis from various public, private, and commercial sources during the course of an investigation or analytical project. This information may include some or all of the following types of personally identifiable information: Identifying and biographic data such as name and date of birth; citizenship and immigration data; border crossing data; customs import-export history; criminal history; contact information; criminal associates; family relationships; photographs and other media; and employment and education information. The records also include tips received by ICE from the public concerning suspicious or potentially illegal activity, as well as telephone call detail records, which contain call transactions and subscriber data, obtained via lawful process during the course of an investigation. This information is maintained by ICE for analytical and investigative purposes and is made accessible to ICE personnel via the FALCON-SA system interface. The system is used to conduct research that supports the production of law enforcement intelligence products; provide lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up; assist in the conduct of ICE criminal and administrative investigations; assist in the disruption of terrorist or other criminal activity; and discover previously unknown connections among existing ICE investigations.

    The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); (f); and (g). Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); and (g). When a record received from another system has been exempted in that source system under 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) or (k)(2), DHS will claim the same exemptions for those records that are claimed for the original primary systems of records from which they originated and claims any additional exemptions set forth here.

    Exemptions from these particular subsections are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be determined at the time a request is made, for the following reasons:

    (a) From subsection (c)(3) and (4) (Accounting for Disclosures) because release of the accounting of disclosures could alert the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS as well as the recipient agency. Disclosure of the accounting would therefore present a serious impediment to law enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve national security. Disclosure of the accounting would also permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension, which would undermine the entire investigative process.

    (b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) because access to the records contained in this system of records could inform the subject of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation to the existence of that investigation and reveal investigative interest on the part of DHS or another agency. Access to the records could permit the individual who is the subject of a record to impede the investigation, to tamper with witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection or apprehension. Amendment of the records could interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities and would impose an unreasonable administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continually reinvestigated. In addition, permitting access and amendment to such information could disclose classified and other security-sensitive information that could be detrimental to homeland security.

    (c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and Necessity of Information) because in the course of investigations into potential violations of Federal law, the accuracy of information obtained or introduced occasionally may be unclear, or the information may not be strictly relevant or necessary to a specific investigation. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is appropriate to retain all information that may aid in establishing patterns of unlawful activity.

    (d) From subsection (e)(2) (Collection of Information from Individuals) because requiring that information be collected from the subject of an investigation would alert the subject to the nature or existence of the investigation, thereby interfering with that investigation and related law enforcement activities.

    (e) From subsection (e)(3) (Notice to Subjects) because providing such detailed information could impede law enforcement and/or threaten individuals' safety by compromising the existence of a confidential investigation or reveal the identity of witnesses or confidential informants.

    (f) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements) and (f) (Agency Rules), because portions of this system are exempt from the individual access provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons noted above, and therefore DHS is not required to establish requirements, rules, or procedures with respect to such access. Providing notice to individuals with respect to existence of records pertaining to them in the system of records or otherwise setting up procedures pursuant to which individuals may access and view records pertaining to themselves in the system would undermine investigative efforts and reveal the identities of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and confidential informants.

    (g) From subsection (e)(5) (Collection of Information) because with the collection of information for law enforcement purposes, it is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely, and complete. Compliance with subsection (e)(5) would preclude DHS agents from using their investigative training and exercise of good judgment to both conduct and report on investigations.

    (h) From subsection (e)(8) (Notice on Individuals) because compliance would interfere with DHS's ability to obtain, serve, and issue subpoenas, warrants, and other law enforcement mechanisms that may be filed under seal and could result in disclosure of investigative techniques, procedures, and evidence.

    (i) From subsection (g)(1) (Civil Remedies) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09026 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 170, 177, and 189 [Docket No. FDA-2015-F-0537] Natural Resources Defense Council et al.; Denial of Food Additive Petition AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification; denial of petition.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is denying a petition, submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, Children's Environmental Health Network, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Breast Cancer Fund, Center for Environmental Health, Environmental Working Group, and Improving Kids' Environment, requesting that we revoke the Threshold of Regulation (TOR) exemption No. 2005-006 to no longer exempt from our food additive regulations the use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate as a conductivity enhancer in antistatic agents for use in finished articles in contact with dry foods; issue a new FDA regulation to prohibit the use of perchlorates in antistatic agents for use in food-contact articles; and amend our food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers.

    DATES:

    This notification is effective May 4, 2017; except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. See Section VI of this document for information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by June 5, 2017. Late, untimely filed objections will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of June 5, 2017. Objections received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing identified by Docket No. FDA-2015-F-0537, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Objections submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your objection does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information or other information that identifies you in the body of your objection, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper objections submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your objection, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-F-0537 for “Natural Resources Defense Council et al.; Denial of Food Additive Petition.” Received objections, those filed in a timely manner (see DATES), will be placed in the docket, and except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publically viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” We will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or objections received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hui-Chen (Anita) Chang, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-275), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1161.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    In a document published in the Federal Register of March 16, 2015 (80 FR 13508), we announced that we filed a food additive petition (FAP 4B4808) (“petition”) submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, 1152 15th St. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005; the Center for Food Safety, 303 Sacramento St., Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111; Clean Water Action, 144 I St. NW., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005; the Center for Science in the Public Interest, 1220 L St. NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20005; Children's Environmental Health Network, 110 Maryland Ave. NE., Suite 402, Washington, DC 20002; the Breast Cancer Fund, 1388 Sutter St., Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94109-5400; the Center for Environmental Health, 2201 Broadway, Suite 302, Oakland, CA 94612; Environmental Working Group, 1436 U St. NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20009; and Improving Kids' Environment, 1915 West 18th St., Indianapolis, IN 46202 (collectively, “petitioners”). In the March 2015 document, we requested comments on the petition under § 189.1(c) (21 CFR 189.1(c)). The petition included submissions dated July 31, 2014, October 15, 2014, and December 5, 2014. The October 15, 2014, submission included a resubmission of the entire July 31, 2014, original petition with the inclusion of some additional information. The December 5, 2014, submission contained additional information to that provided in the October 15, 2014, submission. Any references to specific parts of the petition are to the October 15, 2014, submission while specific references to the December 5, 2014, submission will refer to the date of that document.

    The petition asked FDA to take three separate regulatory actions: (1) Revoke its 2005 approval of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 allowing as much as 1.2 percent sodium perchlorate monohydrate in dry food packaging; (2) issue a new § 189.301 (21 CFR 189.301) prohibiting the use of perchlorate as a conductivity enhancer in the manufacture of antistatic agents to be used in food contact articles; and (3) remove potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers in existing § 177.1210 (21 CFR 177.1210). For accuracy, we will refer to the petition's second request as a request to issue a new regulation under part 189 because a regulation already exists at § 189.301. The petition asserted that the allowed food-contact uses of perchlorate are not safe because there is no longer a reasonable certainty that the perchlorate is not harmful under the intended conditions of use considering: (1) The probable consumption of perchlorate; (2) the cumulative effect of perchlorate after taking into account pharmacologically-related substances, such as thiocyanate and nitrate, in the diet; and (3) additional safety factors necessary to protect the developing brain of fetuses and infants from irreversible harm. The petition also asserted that new exposure data are available that support the requested revocation of TOR exemption No. 2005-006.

    Both food contact substances that are the subject of the petition—sodium perchlorate monohydrate and potassium perchlorate—belong to a class of chemicals termed “perchlorates.” Perchlorates are both naturally-occurring and man-made chemicals with a wide variety of industrial and some medical applications. Perchlorates are ionic salts that contain the perchlorate anion (chemical structure ClO4 ). In this notification, the term “perchlorates” refers to the class of chemicals while the term “perchlorate” refers to the perchlorate ion.

    II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    The petition asked FDA to take actions related to three different types of FDA regulations.

    1. Food Additive Regulation

    The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) authorizes us to regulate “food additives” (see section 409(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348(a)). The FD&C Act defines “food additive,” in relevant part, as any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component of food (see section 201(s) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(s))). Food additives can include both substances added directly to food and “food contact substance[s]” (i.e., substances intended for use in materials that come into contact with food, for instance in food packaging or manufacturing, but which are not intended to have any technical effect in the food (see § 170.3(e)(3) (21 CFR 170.3(e)(3))). Food additives are deemed unsafe and prohibited except to the extent that we approve their use (see, e.g., section 301(a) and (k) (21 U.S.C. 331(a) and (k)) and 409(a) of the FD&C Act).

    The FD&C Act provides a process through which persons who wish to use a food additive may submit a petition proposing the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which the additive may be safely used (see section 409(b)(1) of the FD&C Act). Such a petition is referred to as a “food additive petition.” When we conclude that a proposed use of a food additive is safe, we issue a regulation called a “food additive regulation” authorizing a specific use of the substance.

    The specific food additive regulation at issue in the petition, § 177.1210, lists substances allowed as indirect additives (also called food contact substances) in closures with sealing gaskets for food containers. Potassium perchlorate is one of the listed substances authorized for this use under § 177.1210.

    The FD&C Act provides that we must by regulation prescribe the procedure by which a food additive regulation may be amended or repealed (see section 409(i) of the FD&C Act). Our regulation specific to the administrative actions for food additives provides that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner), on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, may propose the issuance of a regulation amending or repealing a regulation pertaining to a food additive (see § 171.130(a) (21 CFR 171.130(a))). Our regulation, at § 171.130(b), further provides that any such petition must include an assertion of facts, supported by data, showing that new information exists with respect to the food additive or that new uses have been developed or old uses abandoned, that new data are available as to toxicity of the chemical, or that experience with the existing regulation or exemption may justify its amendment or repeal.

    FDA has issued administrative regulations for food additive petitions in part 171. These regulations apply to food additive petitions requesting either that we authorize the new use of a food additive or that we amend or repeal an existing food additive regulation.

    2. TOR Exemption

    The food additive petition process generally applies to substances used in food packaging or processing when the proposed use will cause the substance to become part of the food at a level that exceeds a minimum “threshold of regulation” (see § 170.39 (21 CFR 170.39)). Our determination that a use of a substance is at or below the “threshold of regulation” is referred to as a “threshold of regulation” exemption, or a TOR exemption. Regardless of whether the use of a substance is at or below the threshold of regulation, we reserve the right to apply the food additive petition process in those cases in which available information establishes that the proposed food-contact use may pose a public health risk (see § 170.39(b)).

    We established the procedures set forth in § 170.39 to exempt certain substances used in food-contact articles (e.g., food-packaging (such as a cereal bag) or food-processing equipment) that migrate or may be expected to migrate into food at negligible levels from regulation as a food additive. Eligible substances must become a component of food at levels that are at or below the threshold of regulation, must not have been shown to cause cancer in humans or animals or be suspected carcinogens, and must meet other criteria in § 170.39. If we determine the criteria are met, we inform the requestor by letter that the intended use of a substance in food-contact articles is exempt from regulation as a food additive. Therefore, when we issue a TOR exemption, the intended use of the substance does not require a regulation authorizing its food additive use under section 409 of the FD&C Act (also referred to as a “listing regulation”) or food additive petition (see §§ 170.3(e)(2) and 171.8). We issued TOR exemption No. 2005-006 in 2005. We maintain a list of TOR exemptions on our Web site (Ref. 1).

    Our regulations provide that if we receive significant new information that raises questions about the dietary concentration or the safety of a substance that is the subject of a TOR exemption, we may reevaluate the substance (see § 170.39(g)). Our regulations, at § 170.39(g), state that if we tentatively conclude that the available information no longer supports an exemption for the use of the food-contact material from the food additive regulations, we will notify any persons that requested an exemption for the substance of our tentative decision and will provide them with an opportunity to show why the use of the substance should not be regulated under the food additive provisions of the FD&C Act. If the requestors fail to adequately respond to the new evidence, we notify them that further use of the substance in question for the particular use will require a food additive regulation (see § 170.39(g)). Thus, anyone who seeks to use such substance as a food additive would need to submit a food additive petition seeking such a regulation or obtain authorization through a food contact notification. We also notify other manufacturers, by means of a notice published in the Federal Register, of our decision to revoke a TOR exemption issued for a specific use of a substance in a food-contact article (see § 170.39(g)).

    3. Regulation Under Part 189

    Our regulations at § 189.1(a) provide that “food ingredients” may be prohibited from uses in human food based on a determination that the food ingredients present a potential risk to the public health or have not been shown by adequate scientific data to be safe for use in human food. Additionally, § 189.1(c) provides that the Commissioner, either on his own initiative or on the petition of any interested person, may publish a proposal to establish, amend, or repeal a regulation under this section on the basis of new scientific evaluation or information. We established part 189 to: (1) Provide, for reference purposes, a partial listing of substances prohibited from use in human food and (2) create an administrative process through which we can prohibit by rulemaking the use of substances in human foods because of a determination that they present a potential risk to the public health or have not been shown by adequate scientific data to be safe for use in human foods (see 39 FR 34172, September 23, 1974).

    B. Abandonment of Use of Potassium Perchlorate Authorized Under 21 CFR § 177.1210

    In a document published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42585), we announced that we filed a food additive petition (FAP 6B4816) (“abandonment petition”) that proposed that we amend § 177.1210 to no longer provide for the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers because the use has been intentionally and permanently abandoned. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, we have published a final rule concluding that the use of potassium perchlorate authorized under § 177.1210 has been permanently and completely abandoned. The final rule amends § 177.1210 to no longer authorize the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers.

    Because the final rule issued in response to the abandonment petition removes potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers—thereby taking the third action requested in the petition—the petition's third request is moot, and it is neither necessary nor an efficient use of our resources to address the petitioners' assertions regarding the safety of the food additive use of potassium perchlorate that is no longer authorized. Where helpful for clarity, this notification will describe the petition's arguments regarding the food additive use of potassium perchlorate in the course of reviewing the petition's requests to revoke TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and to issue a new regulation under part 189.

    C. The Scope of a Food Additive Petition

    The petitioners designated their petition as a “food additive petition.” A food additive petition must either propose the issuance of a regulation prescribing the conditions under which a food additive may be safely used (see section 409(b)(1) of the FD&C Act), or propose the amendment or repeal of an existing food additive regulation (see section 409(i) of the FD&C Act).

    Only one of the petition's requested actions falls within the statutory scope of a food additive petition: Amending § 177.1210 to remove potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers, the action we are taking in response to the abandonment petition. Because the petition's other two requests—the revocation of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and the issuance of a regulation under part 189 prohibiting the use of perchlorate in the manufacture of antistatic agents to be used in food-contact articles—are not directed at regulations issued under the food additive petition process, they are governed by different regulations and are not subject to the statutory processes for food additive petitions.

    TOR substances, i.e., substances used in food-contact articles that become a component of food at levels that are below the threshold of regulation and meet the criteria in § 170.39, are exempt from regulation as food additives and do not require a listing regulation or food additive petition (see §§ 170.3(e)(2) and 171.8). As noted in the filing notice for this petition, the procedures for reevaluating and revoking a TOR exemption are set forth in § 170.39(g). These procedures are distinct from the food additive petition process. A request to revoke a TOR exemption is the proper subject of a citizen petition submitted under 21 CFR 10.30.

    The petition's request that we issue a new regulation under part 189 also falls outside the scope of a food additive petition. A proposed part 189 regulation does not propose the issuance of a new food additive regulation or the amendment or repeal of an existing food additive regulation (see sections 409(b)(1) and (i) of the FD&C Act). Under part 189, an interested person can use the citizen petition process to request a regulation prohibiting a substance from human food (see § 189.1(c) (referring to 21 CFR part 10, which sets forth FDA's citizen petition process)).

    Although the requests to revoke the approval of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and to issue a new regulation under part 189 are outside the scope of a food additive petition, for reasons of administrative efficiency, we initially considered these requests in conjunction with the petition's request to amend § 177.1210 to remove potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers. Because the food additive use of potassium perchlorate has been removed from § 177.1210 in response to the abandonment petition, it is neither necessary nor an efficient use of resources to address the petition's assertions regarding this use of perchlorate. Nonetheless, because we considered all of these requests together for purposes of administrative efficiency, we are addressing the petition's requests to revoke the approval of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and to issue a new regulation under part 189 in this document. However, although we are addressing these requests in connection with our denial of a food additive petition, we emphasize that these requests are not the proper subject of a food additive petition. Our denial of these two requests is a final Agency decision, but is not an order under section 409(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act.

    D. Background on Perchlorate

    Perchlorate can interfere with the normal functioning of the thyroid gland by competitively inhibiting the transport of iodide into the thyroid. Iodide is an important component of two thyroid hormones, T4 and T3, and the transfer of iodide from the blood into the thyroid is an essential step in the synthesis of these two hormones. Iodide transport into the thyroid is mediated by a protein molecule known as the sodium (Na+)-iodide (I) symporter (NIS). NIS molecules bind iodide with high affinity, but they also bind other ions that have a similar shape and electric charge, such as perchlorate. The binding of these other ions to the NIS can inhibit iodide transport into the thyroid, which can result in intrathyroidal iodide deficiency and consequently decreased synthesis of T4 and T3 (73 FR 60262, 60266, October 10, 2008). In fetuses, infants, and young children, thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development. Id. at 60275. For example, sustained thyroid hormone decrement in a pregnant mother could lead to adverse neurodevelopmental effects in the fetus. Id. at 60266. Research in this area is ongoing.

    As part of its discussion asserting that new information is available that raises question as to the safety of the allowed food-contact uses of perchlorates, the petition cited two reviews on perchlorate requested by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): A 2005 National Research Council (NRC) review (Ref. 2) and the 2013 report of the EPA's Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) (Ref. 3). The 2005 NRC report noted that thyroid iodide uptake inhibition (IUI) is the only effect that has been consistently documented in humans exposed to perchlorate. Therefore, as part of its review, the NRC utilized a hypothetical mode-of-action (MOA) framework, which represents a continuum of possible biological effects resulting from perchlorate exposure, to describe the potential pathway of events following perchlorate exposure. This MOA framework hypothesized that IUI could induce thyroid hormone changes to an extent that could ultimately result in neurodevelopmental effects in fetuses and infants. The SAB utilized a similar MOA framework. In both MOA frameworks, IUI is the determinant, non-adverse precursor effect, which must occur prior to any later adverse effect.

    1. 2005 NRC Review

    The 2005 NRC report was prepared in response to a request from the EPA that the National Academy of Sciences review the science regarding potential adverse effects of disruption of thyroid function and provide recommendations to apply this information to a risk assessment for environmental contamination from perchlorate. The report recommended that EPA derive a reference dose (RfD) for perchlorate by applying a tenfold intraspecies uncertainty factor to a no observed effect level (NOEL) based on the initiation of IUI as determined in a human study (Ref. 4). (The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. The NOEL is an exposure level at which there are no statistically or biologically significant increases in frequency or severity of any effect between the exposed population and its appropriate control.) The NRC stated that this approach was conservative and protective of health given that the NOEL is based on the non-adverse effect of IUI, which precedes the continuum of possible adverse effects as a result of perchlorate exposure. According to the NRC, the application of the uncertainty factor accounts for differences in sensitivity between the healthy human subjects of the determinant clinical study and “even the most sensitive populations” for perchlorate exposure, which the NRC identified as fetuses of pregnant women who may have hypothyroidism or iodide deficiency. (Hypothyroidism is a condition where “the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormones to meet the body's needs” (Ref. 5)). EPA adopted the NRC's recommendations resulting in an RfD of 0.7 micrograms perchlorate/kilogram body weight/day (μg/kg bw/d) (Ref. 6).

    2. 2013 EPA SAB Report

    The 2013 SAB report was developed in response to a request by EPA for guidance on a suitable approach to utilize relevant available information to derive a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for perchlorate in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act defines an MCLG as the level of a contaminant in drinking water “at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows for an adequate margin of safety.” 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(4). An MCLG is a nonenforceable public health goal. EPA generally derives an MCLG using the RfD and specific chemical exposure factors. (Ref. 7). Rather than this default approach, the SAB recommended that EPA expand existing physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PBPK/PD) models to relate perchlorate exposure, in combination with iodide intake, beyond IUI to downstream MOA framework effects, such as resultant thyroid hormone perturbations and potential adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. The SAB also recommended that the sensitive populations for exposure to perchlorate that EPA should consider when determining an MCLG are the fetuses of hypothyroxinemic pregnant women (hypothyroxinemia means that the free thyroxine (fT4) value is at lower end of the normal range with normal levels of thyroid stimulating hormone (Ref. 8)) and infants exposed to perchlorate through either water-based formula preparations or the breast milk of lactating women.

    III. Review of the Petition

    The petition asserted that the original request for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 contained errors that should have made the request ineligible for a TOR exemption under § 170.39. The petition also asserted that we made additional errors in exempting the proposed use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate from regulation as a food additive. The petition also identified four categories of “significant new information that raises questions about the dietary concentration or the safety of a substance that [FDA] has exempted from regulation,” that it contends warrant reevaluation of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 under § 170.39(g). Lastly, the petition asserted that infants are likely to be disproportionately impacted by perchlorate, and that we have an obligation under Executive Order 13045 (see 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) to address risks to infants from perchlorate exposure. The petition also requested that FDA issue a new regulation under part 189 to prohibit the use of perchlorate as a conductivity enhancer in the manufacture of antistatic agents to be “applied to food contact articles.”

    We will first address the petition's arguments regarding the review of TOR exemption No. 2005-006, then address the petition's arguments based on “significant new information,” then subsequently address the assertions pertaining to our obligation under Executive Order 13045, and finally, the request that we issue a new regulation under part 189.

    A. Arguments Regarding Review of TOR Exemption No. 2005-006

    The petition claimed that multiple errors were made in the original calculation of dietary exposure resulting from the use allowed by the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and that assumptions used in that calculation were either improperly applied or have been shown to be flawed based on new information available after the TOR exemption became effective. The petition stated further that if these alleged errors were addressed, the dietary exposure resulting from the use allowed by the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 would exceed the TOR exemption criteria.

    We describe the background for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 in section III.A.1. The issues raised in the petition concerning alleged errors in the original calculation and assumptions used in that calculation, as well as our responses to those issues, are discussed in sections III.A.2 through III.A.6.

    1. Background for TOR Exemption No. 2005-006

    Our regulations, at § 170.39(a)(2), provide the exposure criteria for a TOR exemption. As stated in § 170.39(a)(2)(i), the use of a substance will be exempted from regulation as a food additive if the use in question is shown to result in or may be expected to result in dietary concentrations at or below 0.5 parts per billion (ppb), corresponding to dietary exposure levels at or below 1.5 µg of substance/person/day (based on a diet of 1,500 grams (g) of solid food and 1,500 g of liquid food per person per day). As noted in section II.A.2, § 170.39(g) sets forth the procedures for reevaluating and revoking a TOR exemption.

    We have issued guidance documents to help interested parties when preparing premarket submissions for food contact substances. Our guidance document specific to chemistry recommendations for food contact substances (Ref. 9) (“chemistry guidance”) provides recommendations for: (1) Migration protocols to determine or estimate the concentration of a food contact substance in the specific food that contacts a given food-contact article containing the substance as a result of the intended use of that substance (“the migration of a substance”) and (2) how to use this information to calculate the resultant total dietary exposure to the substance as a result of its intended use. Our chemistry guidance provides general protocols for food-contact articles intended for single use, as well as general recommendations for articles intended for repeated use.

    The chemistry guidance also provides recommended migration protocols for certain specific use applications, including articles intended for use only with non-fatty, dry foods (termed “Food Type VIII” in our chemistry guidance). Specific to non-fatty, dry foods, the recommended protocol includes an assumption that a food contact substance migrates into non-fatty, dry foods at a level of 50 µg substance per kilogram food, or 50 ppb. To determine total dietary exposure to a substance as a result of its intended use, the chemistry guidance recommends the application of a consumption factor to the concentration in food determined from the migration protocol. The consumption factor describes the fraction of the daily diet expected to contact a specific type of packaging material. Consumption factors are derived using information on the types of food consumed, the types of food contacting each packaging surface, the number of food packaging units in each food packaging category, the distribution of container sizes, and the ratio of the weight of food packaged to the weight of the package (Ref. 9).

    The request for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 was submitted to FDA by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation (Ciba) on June 17, 2005. Although Ciba calculated exposure for sodium perchlorate monohydrate, in this document we convert Ciba's exposure numbers to exposure to the perchlorate anion (the substance of toxicological concern is the perchlorate anion and EPA's RfD for perchlorate is expressed on a perchlorate anion basis). To determine the concentration of perchlorate anion (i.e., “perchlorate”) in food that contacts finished articles containing sodium perchlorate monohydrate as a result of TOR exemption No. 2005-006, Ciba applied the percentage of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption for non-fatty, dry foods listed in our chemistry guidance. This resulted in a sodium perchlorate monohydrate concentration in food of 0.6 ppb, which corresponds to a concentration of 0.4 ppb for perchlorate in food. To determine a total dietary concentration for perchlorate as a result of this specific use, Ciba then applied our consumption factor for substances that may be used in all polymers but only for specific uses (0.05) to this concentration value. This resulted in a total dietary concentration for sodium perchlorate monohydrate of 0.03 ppb, or 0.02 ppb for perchlorate. For comparison against the TOR exemption exposure criteria stipulated in § 170.39(a)(2)(i), Ciba subsequently multiplied this total dietary concentration by FDA's assumption that an individual consumes 3 kg of food per day. This resulted in a dietary exposure of 0.09 µg sodium perchlorate monohydrate/person/day, or 0.063 µg perchlorate/person/day. A review that we conducted before TOR exemption 2005-006 became effective determined that the provided information demonstrated that the use would result in a dietary exposure below the 1.5 µg/person/day TOR exemption criteria (Ref. 10).

    2. Issues Pertaining to Calculations Based on FDA's Chemistry Guidance

    The petition asserted that Ciba deviated from the recommendations provided in FDA's chemistry guidance when calculating the exposure to perchlorate that results from the intended use for the TOR exemption No. 2005-006. Specifically, the petition asserted that applying the percentage of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption deviates from the recommended migration protocol for non-fatty, dry foods and improperly made Ciba's intended use for sodium perchlorate monohydrate eligible for a TOR exemption. Furthermore, the petition said that the original TOR exemption submission did not account for the recommendations presented in FDA's chemistry guidance for substances in food-contact articles intended for repeated-use.

    a. Applying the percentage of sodium perchlorate in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption. The petition asserted that Ciba “varied” from our chemistry guidance when it “inserted the amount of perchlorate in the formulation (4%) and the amount of formulation in the packaging (30%) into” the equation for calculating the dietary concentration of sodium perchlorate monohydrate. Specifically, Ciba applied the percentage of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in the finished food-contact article (4% × 30% = 1.2%) to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption.

    We acknowledge that our chemistry guidance does not specifically discuss a procedure for applying the percentage of a substance in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption for the food contact substance, but applying such a percentage to a migration concentration assumption does not deviate from that guidance. The migration protocol for Food Type VIII is written at a general level and does not preclude scientifically appropriate calculations based on the percentage of a food contact substance when using the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption. We believe it was scientifically appropriate for Ciba to apply the percentage of the food contact substance in the finished packaging to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption. Ciba's calculation noted that sodium perchlorate monohydrate represents only a small fraction of the antistatic agent in which it is used (4 percent), and the antistatic agent itself represents only a fraction of the finished food-contact article in which it is used (30 percent). Therefore, absent contradictory data, it is scientifically reasonable to assume that sodium perchlorate monohydrate migrates to Food Type VIII at the level that it is present in the finished food-contact article (i.e., 1.2 percent of the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption). Such percentages have been applied to migration concentration assumptions in other submissions that have been approved or become effective (Ref. 11).

    We also note that the chemistry guidance states that dry foods with the surface containing no free fat or oil typically exhibit little or no migration, and cites volatile or low molecular weight adjuvants as examples of substances that would be expected to migrate into non-fatty, dry foods. Sodium perchlorate monohydrate is an ionic compound with low volatility and therefore would not be expected to migrate from food-contact materials into non-fatty, dry foods (Ref. 11). Therefore, there is no scientific basis to suggest that sodium perchlorate monohydrate would migrate into non-fatty, dry foods at a higher percentage of the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption than its percentage in the food-contact article.

    The appropriateness of Ciba's approach of applying the percentage of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption is supported by available analytical data provided in comments to the docket for the petition. The migration protocol specific to non-fatty, dry foods provided in our chemistry guidance recommends either the estimation of the migration of a substance using the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption or the determination of the actual migration via appropriate migration studies. Comments submitted to the docket for the petition include a migration study for sodium perchlorate monohydrate from a worst-case polymeric resin into a simulant for non-fatty, dry foods (see Docket Nos. FDA-2015-F-0537, Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-18), BASF Corp Migration Report (Redacted) re: Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-19), BASF Corporation Appendix A—Analysis Method (Redacted) re: Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-20), BASF Corporation Appendix B—Detailed Sample Analysis Data (Redacted) re: Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-21), BASF Corporation Appendix C—Chromatograms (Redacted) re: Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-22), and BASF Corporation Appendix D—Spiking Validation at Low Perchlorate (Redacted) re: Supplemental Comments from BASF Corporation (Keller and Heckman LLP) (FDA-2015-F-0537-23)). We reviewed this study and determined that it is adequate to determine worst-case migration of perchlorate into non-fatty, dry foods as a result of the use specified in the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 (Ref. 11). As such, the migration concentration in food for perchlorate as determined from this migration study can be used to verify the appropriateness of Ciba's approach of applying the percentage of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in the finished food-contact article to the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption.

    The migration study reported its results on a basis of grams of perchlorate per surface area of test sample. To convert this reporting basis to grams of perchlorate per gram of food, we applied our standard assumption for the food mass-to-surface area ratio for consumer packaging (10 g of food contacting each square inch of food-contact article) to the results of the migration study. This results in a migration concentration of 0.5 nanogram (ng) perchlorate/g food, or 0.5 ppb. This value is substantially less than the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption provided in our chemistry guidance and is essentially equivalent to the 0.4 ppb concentration for perchlorate in food calculated using Ciba's approach in its TOR submission. The dietary exposure to perchlorate calculated using the concentration for perchlorate in food obtained from the migration study (0.075 μg/person/day) is also essentially equivalent to that calculated using Ciba's approach (0.063 µg/person/day) and is lower than the TOR exemption criteria of 1.5 μg/person/day. The results of the migration study confirm that Ciba's approach to calculating migration was scientifically appropriate. Both the migration study and Ciba's approach resulted in dietary exposure figures for sodium perchlorate monohydrate that were lower than the TOR exemption criteria. Therefore, the petition's assertion that the intended use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate would not be eligible for a threshold of regulation exemption if migration had been properly calculated is unfounded.

    b. Calculation of dietary exposure based on migration protocol. As discussed in section III.A.1, FDA's chemistry guidance discusses general protocols for food-contact articles intended for single-use (e.g., a disposable paper cup), as well as for articles intended for repeated-use (e.g., a reusable ceramic mug). Part I.C.5 of the petition noted that Ciba's calculation of dietary exposure “did not rely” on the recommended migration protocol in our chemistry guidance for food-contact articles intended for repeated use. Related to this argument, in the December 5, 2014, submission, the petitioners asserted that Ciba's use of a single-use protocol, rather than a repeated-use protocol, does not account for the release of perchlorate over time “as the plastic degrades or is flexed.”

    Using the single-use protocol results in a higher exposure value than using the repeated-use protocol because: (1) The factors applied to the migration value to determine exposure in the single-use protocol are exaggerative and (2) exposure values from repeated-use articles are typically very small in comparison to single-use articles. Therefore, when a food contact substance will be used in both single- and repeated-use articles, it is more conservative and protective to use the single-use protocol to determine exposure than it is to use the repeated-use protocol. Accordingly, where, as here, a food contact substance is intended to be used in both single- and repeated-use food-contact articles, we use the single-use protocol to determine exposure. We only use the repeated-use protocol for food contact substances that are only used in repeated-use food-contact articles. As Ciba's intended use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate was not limited to repeated-use food-contact articles, its use of the single-use protocol, rather than the repeated-use protocol, was appropriate.

    i. Background on migration protocols. The migration protocols in the chemistry guidance provide recommendations on: (1) How to determine the total migration of a substance from a given food-contact surface area (migration value) and (2) how to use that migration value to determine dietary exposure to the migrating substance based upon the mass of food the food-contact surface area will come into contact with and the percentage of the diet that mass of food constitutes. The single-use and repeated-use protocols both provide similar recommendations on how to determine the total amount of migration of a substance from a given food-contact surface area; however, they differ in the assumptions used to determine dietary exposure from that migration value. Specifically, to determine dietary exposure, the single-use protocol applies the following factors to the migration value: (1) FDA's standard assumption of the amount of food in contact with a given surface area of a single-use articles (10 g of food contacting each square inch of food-contact article); (2) food-type distribution factors to account for the variable nature of the food contacting each food-contact article (when applicable); and (3) consumption factors (i.e., the fraction of the daily diet expected to contact a specific type of packaging material). Ciba's calculation did not use food-type distribution factors, and we will not discuss such factors further. By comparison, the repeated-use protocol recommends that dietary exposure be determined by applying to the migration value an estimate of the total mass of food contacting a known food-contact surface area over the service life of the article.

    ii. Use of the single-use protocol for substances in both single- and repeated-use articles. We consider the exposure calculated from the single-use protocol to address the exposure to a food contact substance used in both single- and repeated-use articles for several reasons, including that: (1) The factors applied to the migration value to determine exposure in the single-use protocol are exaggerative and (2) exposure values from repeated-use articles are typically very small in comparison to single-use articles.

    We consider the factors applied to the migration value to determine exposure in the single-use protocol to be exaggerative for several reasons. For instance, the use of a consumption factor in the single-use protocol assumes that the food contact substance will be used in all food-contact articles that utilize the specific type of material to which the consumption factor applies (as discussed in section III.A.1, consumption factors are specific to a material—e.g., glass, paper, or plastic—in that the consumption factor describes the fraction of the daily diet expected to contact packaging that utilizes that type of material). This is an exaggerative assumption. Food contact substances are used in food-contact articles to perform a specific technological function. It is highly unlikely that all food-contact articles that use the type of packaging material to which a specific consumption factor applies will require that technological function. In addition, the use of a consumption factor does not account for the use of alternative food contact substances that perform the same technological function. The following example illustrates the exaggerative nature of the use of a consumption factor: Under the single-use protocol one could use FDA's consumption factor for colored plastics to determine exposure to a black pigment intended to be added to plastic food packaging. FDA's consumption factor for colored plastics describes the fraction of the daily diet expected to contact packaging that consists of colored plastic, regardless of the color of that plastic. However, not all colored plastic is black, and, therefore, a black pigment would not be added to all colored plastics. In addition, there are multiple black pigments that are authorized to color food-contact articles. Given that alternative black pigments are available for the same purpose, it is unlikely that all black colored plastic packaging would use the particular black pigment at issue.

    We also note that exposure values from repeated-use articles are typically very small in comparison to single-use articles because individual repeated-use articles come into contact with significantly larger amounts of food over their service lifetime than individual single-use articles. This results in a much greater food mass-to-surface area ratio for repeated-use articles than the 10 g of food contacting each square inch of food-contact article assumption for single-use articles. The greater food mass-to-surface area ratio for repeated-use articles means that the total amount of migration of a substance from a given food-contact surface area (the migration value) is diluted across a much larger amount of food in comparison to a single-use article, resulting in a significantly lower dietary concentration.

    In conclusion, we consider the exposure to a food contact substance used in both single- and repeated-use articles to be addressed by the exaggerative exposure calculated via the single-use protocol. Therefore, we apply the single-use protocol to food contact substances intended to be used in both single-use and repeated-use food-contact articles.

    iii. Applying worst-case assumptions to available migration information. In any event, we note that the migration study described in section III.A.2.a followed equivalent or more stringent specifications than those recommended in the single- and repeated-use protocols. In section III.A.3, we explain that, even if the absolute worst-case assumptions for both the single- and repeated-use protocols discussed in the chemistry guidance—that each square inch of food-contact article will come into contact with 10 g of food, and that the article will come into contact with all food in a consumer's diet (in other words, no consumption factors or food type distribution factors are applied to the migration value)—are applied to the migration value determined from this study, the calculated dietary exposure to perchlorate would still fall within the TOR exposure exemption criteria. As such, the petitioners' assertions that Ciba did not follow the repeated-use protocol discussed in the chemistry guidance document and that use of a single-use protocol did not account for the release (i.e., migration) of perchlorate over time if the finished article degrades or is flexed, do not support the conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 should be revoked.

    3. Issues Pertaining to the Use of a Consumption Factor When Calculating Dietary Exposure

    The original calculation of dietary exposure resulting from the use allowed by the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 used FDA's consumption factor for substances that may be used in all polymers but only for specific uses. The petition asserted that the use of a consumption factor in this instance is inappropriate for a variety of reasons, including that the consumption factor does not account for the use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in all antistatic agents and all polymers, nor in reusable bulk packaging for raw materials which the petition said result in finished articles containing sodium perchlorate monohydrate coming into contact with food ingredients that will later be used in the production of processed foods which are not limited to non-fatty, dry foods.

    To address the petition's assertions regarding the appropriateness of the use of a consumption factor, we used the results of the migration study provided in comments submitted to the docket for the petition (discussed in section III.A.2.a) to calculate the dietary exposure to perchlorate from the use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006 without the use of a consumption factor (Ref. 11). This approach overestimates the dietary exposure from the use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006 because it assumes that finished articles containing sodium perchlorate monohydrate will come into contact with all foods in a consumer's diet instead of coming into contact with just non-fatty, dry foods. This approach also assumes that all food will come into contact with articles containing sodium perchlorate monohydrate at the maximum allowed use level, which is a conservative assumption because it can be expected that not all finished articles would utilize the substance at the maximum allowed use level. In addition, this calculation utilizes our food mass-to-surface area ratio assumption for consumer (single use) packaging, even though it can be expected that food-contact articles used in food processing and raw material storage have a much larger food mass-to-surface area ratio than consumer packaging (see discussion in section III.A.2.b.ii).

    Using this conservative approach, we calculated a perchlorate exposure of 1.5 µg/person/day, which falls within the TOR exemption criteria specified in § 170.39(a)(2)(i) even without the use of a consumption factor. This calculation demonstrates that the assertions raised in the petition pertaining to the use of a consumption factor do not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is no longer supportable under § 170.39(g).

    4. Inclusion of Use in Contact With Infant Formula and Food for Children Younger Than Two Years Old

    As discussed in section III.A.1, the original submission for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 calculated the dietary exposure to perchlorate from the intended use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate. This calculation used several factors, including a consumption factor as well as an assumption of a total food consumption of 3 kg of food per day. Section I.C.3 of the petition stated that because these factors are specific to adults, exposure calculated using these factors could underestimate perchlorate exposure for infants relying on powdered formula as their sole source of nutrition if sodium perchlorate monohydrate was used in infant formula packaging as a result of TOR exemption No. 2005-006. The petition stated that many infants rely on infant formula as their sole source of nutrition, whereas adults consume a diverse diet. The petition also stated that infants consume more food per bodyweight than adults.

    a. Section 170.39(a)(2)(i) and the use of specific factors to calculate exposure. As discussed in section III.A.1, § 170.39(a)(2)(i) requires that dietary exposure be calculated using a specified assumption of 3 kg of food per day, which is an assumption for the general adult population. In addition, § 170.39(a)(2)(i) requires that dietary exposure be expressed on a per person basis (µg/person/day), which does not account for the fact that infants consume more food per bodyweight than adults. To account for the fact that infants consume more food per bodyweight than adults, infant dietary exposure would need to be expressed on a bodyweight basis (µg/kg bodyweight/day). Section 170.39(a)(2)(i) does not preclude the use of a consumption factor when calculating exposure; as discussed in section III.A.3, the use of a consumption factor refines exposure by taking into account the fraction of the daily diet expected to contact a specific type of packaging material rather than assuming a given food contact substance will be used in contact with all food in a consumer's diet. However, in section III.A.3 we also demonstrate that the dietary exposure to perchlorate that results from the intended use subject to TOR exemption 2005-006 falls within the TOR exemption criteria even if that exposure is calculated without the use of a consumption factor.

    b. Section 170.39(b) and infant exposure to perchlorate from the TOR use. Although the intended use for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 results in an exposure of 1.5 μg/person/day or less using the assumptions specified in § 170.39(a)(2)(i), under § 170.39(b) we can decline to grant a TOR exemption in those cases where the available information establishes that the proposed use may pose a public health risk. In certain circumstances, we believe that infants' dietary exposure to a substance may be relevant to whether the proposed use of a substance may pose a public health risk under § 170.39(b). Therefore, to address the petition's argument that the use of adult-specific exposure assumptions could underestimate perchlorate exposure for infants that solely consume reconstituted powdered formula, we calculated a potential exposure to perchlorate in powdered formula from the intended use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006. We calculated this potential infant dietary exposure by applying infant-specific exposure assumptions articulated in FDA's draft guidance for food contact notification submissions for food contact substances that contact infant formula or human milk (Ref. 12), to data from the migration study provided in comments submitted to the docket for the petition (discussed in Section III.A.2.). These infant-specific dietary exposure assumptions include an assumption that an infant (aged 0 to 6 months) consumes 900 g of liquid formula per day (data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey indicate that the highest mean intake for infants 0-6-months is for 2-month old infants, which have an intake of 900 grams/day). FDA also used the corresponding mean body weight of 2-month olds of 6.3 kg bodyweight/infant. The infant-specific potential dietary exposure estimate excludes the use of a consumption factor, because infants aged 0 to 6 months frequently consume human milk and/or infant formula exclusively. Using this approach, we calculated a potential infant dietary exposure to perchlorate in powdered formula from the intended use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006 of 0.019 µg/kg bodyweight/day (Ref. 11). As discussed in section III.B, the petition discusses the safety of perchlorate exposure in the context of the RfD for perchlorate, as well as a value derived from a preliminary, biologically based dose-response model. This calculated potential perchlorate exposure for powdered formula is less than both the RfD for perchlorate (0.7 µg/kg bodyweight/day) and the value derived from the model (0.42 µg/kg bodyweight/day). Thus, the petition does not demonstrate that there is a public health risk to infants under § 170.39(b) as a result of the intended use of perchlorate allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006.

    5. Consideration of Exposure From Other Sources

    The petition asserted that section 409(c)(5)(B) of the FD&C Act and § 170.3(i)(2) require consideration of cumulative exposure to perchlorate in the review of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and that, if these exposures are considered when calculating the dietary exposure for the TOR exemption, the resultant exposure may exceed the TOR exemption criteria of dietary exposure at or below 1.5 µg/person/day. Specifically, the petition stated that the original calculation of dietary exposure resulting from the use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006 did not consider dietary exposure to perchlorate as a result of the approved food-contact use of potassium perchlorate listed in § 177.1210, nor as a result of environmental contamination of the food supply.

    The use of a food contact substance that is exempted from regulation as a food additive under FDA's TOR regulation is not subject to the factors that apply to the proposed use of a food additive under section 409(c)(5)(B) of the FD&C Act and § 170.3(i)(2). Rather, when we exempt a food-contact use of a substance from regulation as a food additive, our TOR regulation ensures the safety of this food-contact use by setting extremely low limits on migration levels so that its proposed use results in a negligible dietary concentration, and requiring that the substance not be a carcinogen. A premise of the TOR regulation is that if a substance meets these requirements, it presents no other health or safety concerns (see § 170.39(a)(2)). In determining whether the use of a substance qualifies for a TOR exemption, cumulative exposure to a substance is not considered under the TOR regulation because the dietary exposure from the use of a substance that is at or below the threshold of regulation is negligible. Thus, § 170.39(a)(2)(i) provides that the only dietary exposure that is relevant to whether the use of a substance qualifies for a TOR exemption from regulation as a food additive is the dietary exposure resulting from the use in question.

    We established the threshold of regulation set forth in § 170.39(a)(2)(i) based on available toxicological data showing that it was feasible to establish a threshold level below which dietary exposures to substances used in food-contact articles are so negligible as to pose no public health or safety concerns (see 60 FR 36582, July 17, 1995). In the preamble to the proposed TOR rule, we explained that our analysis of toxicological data on a large number of representative compounds demonstrated that the noncarcinogenic toxic effects caused by the majority of unstudied compounds would be unlikely to occur below 1,000 ppb (58 FR 52719 at 52722, October 12, 1993). To provide an adequate safety margin, we selected 0.5 ppb as the threshold for regulation, which is 2,000 times lower than the dietary concentration at which the vast majority of studied compounds are likely to cause noncarcinogenic toxic effects (see 58 FR 52719 at 52722). We also analyzed potency data on a large number of known carcinogens to determine that the 0.5 ppb dietary concentration level would result in negligible risk, even in the event that a substance that is exempted from regulation as a food additive were later shown to be a carcinogen (see 58 FR 52719 at 52722).

    Consistent with § 170.39(a)(2)(i), we do not calculate cumulative exposure to a substance in evaluating whether the use of the substance qualified for a TOR exemption. As we explained in an April 2002 guidance for industry entitled, “Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology Recommendations,” at the time the TOR process was established, FDA determined that, because of the conservative assumptions ordinarily applied in estimating exposure, the cumulative exposure from a limited number of trivial food additive uses is not likely to be more than negligible. Accordingly, in the case of the TOR exposure levels, it was not necessary to utilize cumulative exposure levels. FDA believes that the determination made in establishing its TOR is still sound (Ref. 13).

    Therefore, contrary to the petition's assertions, under FDA's TOR regulations, the dietary exposures to perchlorate that are not a result of the use specified in the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 are not considered under the exposure criteria for the TOR exemption.

    6. Inconsistencies Between the Intended Use Reviewed by FDA and That Listed on Our Inventory of Effective TOR Exemptions

    We maintain an inventory of effective TOR exemptions on our Web site (Ref. 1). The originating submission for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 requested a use for sodium perchlorate monohydrate in antistatic agents at a maximum level of 4 percent by weight. The antistatic agent would be used in finished plastic at a maximum level of 30 percent by weight. The finished plastic would be used in contact with non-fatty, dry foods (Food Type VIII) only. This is the intended use that we considered in 2005 when we determined that the information provided in the originating request demonstrated that the use would result in a dietary exposure at or below the 1.5 µg/person/day criteria. The petition asserted that this intended use was expanded in the final letter for the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 to permit the finished article to be used in contact with all dry foods. The petition also asserted that the intended use was further expanded in the listing on our inventory of effective TOR exemptions, to include the use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate in all types of food contact materials at a maximum use level of 4 percent by weight in the finished article.

    We agree that the intended use for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 was inaccurately described in the final letter for the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 and the inventory of effective TOR exemptions. On August 17, 2015, we corrected the listing for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 on the inventory of effective TORs on our Web site to be consistent with the intended use reviewed by FDA when the TOR exemption became effective and thereby address the petition's assertions regarding the description of the intended use for TOR exemption No. 2005-006. We further revised the listing for TOR exemption No. 2005-006 on September 19, 2016, to clarify that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 allows the use of perchlorate in the manufacture of antistatic agents for use in all polymeric food-contact articles and not only polymeric food packaging.

    B. Arguments Based on “Significant New Information”

    Part I.D. of the petition identified the following four categories of “significant new information” that has become available after TOR exemption No. 2005-006 became effective: “First, additional research shows that the endpoint used in the decision was not the most appropriate or sensitive one to protect fetuses and infants from permanent brain damage. Second, it is now known that nitrates and thiocyanates are pharmacologically-related to perchlorate and, therefore, must be considered in any safety evaluation of perchlorate as an additive. Third, in 2011, FDA acknowledged that the 50 ppb migration to dry-food default assumption (“virtually nil” migration) may be flawed based on research evidence from Europe. Fourth, FDA has demonstrated that there is widespread contamination of the food supply with perchlorate that must be considered.” The petition asserted that this new information warrants a reevaluation of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 under § 170.39(g).

    We will first address the petition's arguments regarding hypothyroxinemia and its proposed acceptable daily intake level, then discuss the petition's arguments pertaining to perchlorate in the food supply and pharmacologically related substances, and finally the arguments pertaining to our 50 ppb migration concentration assumption.

    1. Proposed Acceptable Daily Intake Level Based on Hypothyroxinemia

    The petition proposed an acceptable daily intake (ADI) value in place of the RfD for perchlorate and argues that the exposure from the TOR use exceeds the ADI proposed in the petition. The petition stated that the ADI proposed in the petition better accounts for hypothyroxinemia as a potential result of perchlorate exposure than does the RfD. However, under our TOR regulations, because a substance is expected to migrate into food at negligible levels, a non-carcinogenic endpoint such as hypothyroxinemia is not relevant unless the use of the substance may pose a public health risk under § 170.39(b). As discussed further in this section, the information in the petition does not support such a conclusion under § 170.39(b) because: (1) Even if hypothyroxinemia were relevant, the petition does not demonstrate that the proposed ADI better accounts for the potential for perchlorate to cause hypothyroxinemia than the RfD for perchlorate; (2) the proposed ADI is based on the results of a preliminary model; and (3) even if it were appropriate to base an ADI on the results of the preliminary model, the resulting ADI would still be above the exposure from the TOR use.

    a. Summary of petition's discussion on hypothyroxinemia. The petition asserted that new information, available since TOR exemption No. 2005-006 became effective, demonstrates that exposure to perchlorate can result in hypothyroxinemia. As noted in section I.D.2, hypothyroxinemia means that the fT4 value is at the lower end of the normal range with normal levels of TSH in the blood. The petition asserted that the SAB report, which was issued after the TOR exemption became effective, identified the potentially sensitive population for perchlorate exposure to be fetuses of hypothyroxinemic pregnant women. This is in contrast to the NRC report, which identified the potentially sensitive population for perchlorate exposure to be fetuses of pregnant women with hypothyroidism or iodide deficiency (both the SAB report and the NRC report are discussed in section I.D.2). Based upon this difference, the petition asserted that the RfD, which was based on the NRC review, does not provide sufficient protection to susceptible populations. The petition also asserted that IUI, which is the basis of the RfD, is a less sensitive endpoint than hypothyroxinemia.

    The petition proposed an ADI of 0.042 µg/kilogram bodyweight/day for perchlorate based on the amount of perchlorate exposure that may result in hypothyroxinemia in iodide-deficient pregnant women as reported by FDA scientists in a 2013 Lumen et al. article (Ref. 14). Lumen et al. summarizes the results of a proof-of concept, biologically based dose-response (BBDR, also known as a PBPK/PD) model that is specific to near-term human mothers and fetuses. This model used PBPK/PD data to predict perchlorate intake levels that could produce thyroid hormone perturbations at varying levels of maternal iodide intake. The petition derived its proposed ADI by applying two ten-fold uncertainty factors to the results presented in the Lumen et al. article. One ten-fold uncertainty factor is applied to account for intraspecies variability, while the second tenfold uncertainty factor is applied to account for the assertion that the perchlorate exposure value provided in the Lumen et al. article is based on a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) rather than a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). (The petition also stated that additional, unquantified uncertainty factors should be applied to its proposed ADI to account for deficiencies in the model, but it does not include these factors in its calculation of the proposed ADI.) The petition subsequently compared its proposed ADI to a dietary exposure to perchlorate resulting from the use allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006 as calculated in the petition. As the exposure to perchlorate calculated in the petition is higher than the derived ADI, the petition asserted that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 should be revoked.

    b. FDA's consideration of the petition's discussion on hypothyroxinemia. First, the petition contended that its proposed ADI accounts for the potential for perchlorate to cause hypothyroxinemia while the RfD for perchlorate does not. However, the petition does not adequately support its assertion that the RfD for perchlorate fails to account for the potential for perchlorate to cause hypothyroxinemia (Ref. 15). The SAB's and NRC's identification of different sensitive populations for perchlorate exposure is not a basis for concluding that the RfD provides insufficient protection to the sensitive population identified by the SAB, nor that the RfD does not account for the potential for perchlorate to cause hypothyroxinemia. The RfD for perchlorate is based on the IUI. As previously stated, the basis of the MOA framework for perchlorate is that IUI must first occur prior to any resultant thyroid hormone perturbations such as hypothyroxinemia or hypothyroidism. This contradicts the petition's assertion that IUI is a less sensitive endpoint than hypothyroxinemia. The NRC and SAB used the MOA framework for perchlorate in determining their recommendations. The MOA framework was also used in the development of the Lumen et al. BBDR model cited by the petitioners (Ref. 14). Furthermore, the tenfold intraspecies uncertainty factor utilized by the NRC in the derivation of the RfD is a default value that is intended to account for the entire range of sensitivity among humans to perchlorate exposure. The petition did not provide support for its contention that this default, intraspecies uncertainty factor is not inclusive of fetuses of pregnant women with hypothyroxinemia.

    Second, the 2013 Lumen et al. BBDR model that forms the basis of the ADI proposed by the petitioners is a preliminary model (Ref. 15) that FDA believes is not appropriate to use in a quantitative risk assessment as presented in the petition. Because FDA does not believe that the model should be used for a quantitative risk assessment due to the preliminary nature of the analysis, consideration of the appropriateness of the uncertainty factors proposed by the petitioners is premature at this time. Since the 2013 Lumen et al. article, we have worked with EPA scientists to further develop the model cited by the petitioners. On January 10 and 11, 2017, EPA's contractor conducted an independent, scientific public peer review of EPA's draft BBDR model and report. EPA is currently considering peer reviewer comments. EPA intends to seek peer review of a second report that evaluates methods to apply the final BBDR model to develop a maximum contaminant level goal for perchlorate in drinking water (see 81 FR 87553, December 5, 2016).

    Third, we note that even if the approach taken in the petition were appropriate—i.e., to calculate a risk assessment value based on the results of the preliminary model referenced in the petition, and to apply both 10-fold uncertainty factors specified in the petition (one to account for a LOAEL and one to account for intraspecies variability) to the amount of perchlorate exposure that may result in hypothyroxinemia in iodide-deficient pregnant women as reported in the Lumen et al. article—the resultant ADI calculated in the petition is 0.042 μg/kg bodyweight/day. This risk assessment value is higher than the exposure to perchlorate as a result of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 as determined by Ciba (0.063 μg per chlorate/person/day, which equates to 0.001 μg/kg bodyweight/day utilizing FDA's assumption of 60 kg bodyweight for adults as described in the chemistry guidance), as well as the exposures determined from the migration study discussed in section II.A.2 (for adults: 0.075 μg/person/day which equates to 0.001 μg/kg bodyweight/day; and for infants: 0.019 μg/kilogram bodyweight/day—see section II.A.4). Therefore, even if deriving a risk assessment value based on the results presented in the Lumen et al. article were appropriate, the exposure to perchlorate as a result of TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is lower than the resulting risk assessment value, and therefore would not support the assertion by the petitioners that the results presented in the Lumen et al. article “raises questions about the safe level of exposure to perchlorate relied on by Ciba when the Agency approved TOR No. 2005-006.”

    2. Argument Related to Cumulative Dietary Exposure From Perchlorate, and Substances Pharmacologically Related to Perchlorate, in the Food Supply

    The petition asserted that new information has become available, since FDA issued the listing regulation for potassium perchlorate in § 177.1210 and TOR exemption No. 2005-006, that nitrate and thiocyanate are pharmacologically related to perchlorate, and that perchlorate contamination of the food supply is widespread. The petition also asserted that we are required to take into account the cumulative effect of these substances in the diet.

    As discussed in section III.A.5, under § 170.39(a)(2)(i), we do not calculate cumulative dietary exposure to a substance or pharmacologically related substances in evaluating whether the use of the substance qualifies for a TOR exemption from regulation as a food additive. Under § 170.39(a)(2)(i), the only dietary exposure that is relevant to whether the use of a substance qualifies for a TOR exemption from regulation as a food additive is the dietary exposure resulting from the use in question. Therefore, the petition's argument regarding cumulative dietary exposure to perchlorate or pharmacologically related substances does not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is no longer supportable.

    3. Alleged Flaws in FDA's 50 ppb Migration Concentration Assumption

    The petition stated that FDA, in a 2011 speech by an FDA scientist, acknowledged potential flaws in the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption for migration to non-fatty, dry foods (Food Type VIII). To support this statement, the petition cited a 2011 article which summarizes the speech given by the FDA scientist (Ref. 16). The petition also asserted that the 50 ppb migration assumption is particularly flawed for perchlorate, which is used in packaging to neutralize the static charge on dry food.

    The migration study provided in comments submitted to the docket for the petition (discussed in section III.A.2.a) found that perchlorate migrated into a simulant for non-fatty, dry foods at a concentration of 0.5 ng perchlorate/g food, or 0.5 ppb. As noted, this value is substantially less than the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption provided in our chemistry guidance and indicates that the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption does not understate migration from the intended use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate into non-fatty, dry foods. As a result, the petition's contentions regarding alleged flaws in the 50 ppb migration concentration assumption, both generally and as applied to perchlorate, do not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is no longer supportable.

    C. Alleged Disproportionate Impact of Perchlorate on Children's Health and FDA's Obligation Under Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (see 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), provides in part that, “to the extent permitted by law and appropriate, and consistent with the agency's mission,” each Federal Agency “shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks,” which are defined as “risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breath [sic], the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to).” The petition asserted that, because perchlorate has a disproportionate impact on infants, the Executive Order warrants the use by FDA of additional safety factors beyond those provided in § 170.22 (21 CFR 170.22) when considering the safety of the food-contact uses of perchlorate. Specifically, the petition contended that safety factors in addition to the 100-fold safety factor stated in § 170.22 are necessary due to deficiencies in the Lumen et al. BBDR model (discussed in section III.B.1) and because a pregnant woman's short-term exposure to perchlorate can cause irreversible harm to the fetal brain if the woman has low iodine intake.

    We note that § 170.22 pertains to safety factors used in applying animal experimentation data to man. As the safety arguments presented in the petition utilize data obtained from human subjects, and the petition discusses specific safety factors for each argument, § 170.22 is not relevant to the safety arguments presented in the petition. Furthermore, in the December 5, 2014, submission the petition stated that the tenfold safety factor utilized to derive the RfD for perchlorate is consistent with Executive Order 13045.

    With respect to the petition's request to apply additional safety factors, section III.B.1 explains that FDA believes the results of the BBDR model are preliminary in nature and not an appropriate basis for a quantitative risk assessment as presented in the petition. A discussion of whether or not uncertainty factors should be applied is premature at this time. For these reasons, we believe that our analysis of the potential health effects of perchlorate satisfies Executive Order 13045 and that the use of additional safety factors is not necessary.

    D. Request To Issue a New Regulation Under 21 CFR Part 189

    Part II of the petition asserted that, if FDA were to revoke TOR exemption No. 2005-006, publication of the notice of revocation in the Federal Register would be insufficient to alert industry, and therefore requested that we issue a new regulation under part 189. The requested regulation would prohibit the use of perchlorates in the manufacture of antistatic agents to be used in food-contact articles, which is the use of perchlorate allowed by TOR exemption No. 2005-006.

    Because we conclude that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 remains supportable under § 170.39, we decline to propose a regulation under part 189 prohibiting this use of perchlorate.

    IV. Comments on the Filing Notice

    We received very few comments on the petition. Those comments that discussed the safety of the use of perchlorate in food contact applications did not provide any additional data to that presented in the petition.

    In this section we discuss the issues raised in the remaining comments. We preface each comment discussion with a numbered “Comment” and each response by the word “Response” to make it easier to identify comments and our responses. We have numbered each comment to help distinguish among different topics. The number assigned is for organizational purposes only and does not signify the comment's value, importance, or the order in which it was received.

    (Comment 1) One comment provided a migration study for sodium perchlorate monohydrate from a worst-case polymeric resin into a dry food simulant.

    (Response) This study is discussed in section III.A.2.

    (Comment 2) Several comments stated that the use of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets for food containers has been abandoned.

    (Response) The abandonment of potassium perchlorate as an additive in closure-sealing gaskets is the subject of a separate food additive petition, 6B4816, which we address elsewhere in this edition of the Federal Register.

    (Comment 3) Another comment stated that the petition's request that FDA add perchlorate to the list of prohibited substances contained in part 189 is based upon the identification of a hazard relating to a class of chemical substances. The comment asserted that an approach to safety assessment based on hazard identification is a departure from FDA's practice of evaluating the safety of food contact materials based on their intended use.

    (Response) As we are declining to propose a regulation under part 189 prohibiting the use of perchlorates as a food contact substance in antistatic agents (see section V), it is not necessary to respond to this comment.

    V. Conclusion

    We reviewed the petition and with respect to the petition's first request, we have determined that the dietary exposure to sodium perchlorate monohydrate as a result of the use allowed by the TOR exemption No. 2005-006 does not exceed the TOR exemption criteria in § 170.39(a)(2)(i) and that the data and information provided do not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is no longer supportable. With respect to the petition's second request, we decline to propose a regulation under part 189 prohibiting the use of perchlorates as a food contact substance in antistatic agents because proposing such a regulation would be inconsistent with our conclusion that the data and information provided in the petition do not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No. 2005-006 is no longer supportable. With respect to the petition's third request, which is the sole request that is the proper subject of a food additive petition, the food additive use of potassium perchlorate has been removed from § 177.1210 in a final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register and we decline to address the petitioners' assertions regarding the safety of the food additive use. Therefore, we are denying all three requests, and we are denying the petition in full.

    VI. Objections

    Any person that may be adversely affected by this order may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

    It is only necessary to send one set of documents. Identify documents with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at https://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

    As explained in section II.C, only the petition's request to amend § 177.1210 is within the scope of a food additive petition under section 409(b) of the FD&C Act. The remaining two requests are not within the scope of a food additive petition and our denial of these requests is not an order under section 409(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act. Therefore, the provision for objections and public hearing under section 409(f) of the FD&C Act does not apply to these two requests.

    VII. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change over time.

    1. FDA. “Threshold of Regulation Exemptions.” Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/ThresholdRegulationExemptions/default.htm. 2. National Research Council. 2005. “Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion.” Washington, DC. National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-09568-9. Available at https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11202/health-implications-of-perchlorate-ingestion. 3. EPA. 2013. “SAB Advice on Approaches to Derive a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate.” EPA-SAB-13-004. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab%5CSABPRODUCT.NSF/86E44EE7F27EEC1A85257B7B0060F364/$File/EPA-SAB-13-004-unsigned2.pdf. 4. Greer, M.A., G. Goodman, R.C. Pleus, et al. 2002. “Health Effect Assessment for Environmental Perchlorate Contamination: The Dose Response for Inhibition of Thyroidal Radioiodide Uptake in Humans.” Environmental Health Perspective. 110:927-937. 5. National Institutes of Health, “Hypothyroidism (Underactive Thyroid).” Available at https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/endocrine-diseases/hypothyroidism. 6. EPA. “Perchlorate (ClO4) and Perchlorate Salts.” Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/chemicalLanding.cfm?substance_nmbr=1007. 7. EPA. “White Paper: Life Stage Considerations and Interpretation of Recent Epidemiological Evidence to Develop a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Perchlorate.” 2012. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/d21b76bff879fa0a8525735a00766807/D3BB75D4297CA4698525794300522ACE/$File/Final+Perchlorate+White+Paper+05.29.12.pdf. 8. Stedman, T.L. 2006. “Stedman's Medical Dictionary.” Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 28th ed. ISBN 978-0781733908. 9. FDA. “Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations.” Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm081818.htm. 10. FDA Memorandum from J. Smith, September 15, 2005. 11. FDA Memorandum from R. Costantino to P. Honigfort, March 31, 2017. 12. FDA. “Draft Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances in Contact with Infant Formula and/or Human Milk.” December 2016. Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm528215.htm. 13. FDA. “Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology Recommendations.” Available at https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm081825.htm. 14. Lumen A., D.R. Mattie, and J.W. Fisher. “Evaluation of Perturbations in Serum Thyroid Hormones During Human Pregnancy Due to Dietary Iodide and Perchlorate Exposure Using a Biologically Based Dose-Response Model.” Toxicological Sciences. 133(2):320-41, 2013. 15. FDA Memorandum from G. Patton, P. Honigfort, and J. Aungst to Administrative File, March 31, 2017. 16. Clapp, S., “FDA Chemist Says Agency's Food Contact Advice is `Showing Its Age.' ” Food Chemicals News. 53(30): 11-12, 2011. Dated: April 28, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08987 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0897] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Ground; Atlantic Ocean, Jacksonville, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its anchorage regulations to establish a new offshore anchorage area approximately 7 nautical miles northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida. Currently, there is not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean-going vessels arriving at the Port of Jacksonville. Establishing an adequate and dedicated offshore anchorage will alleviate hazardous conditions with vessels anchoring in the common approaches to the St. Johns River. This action is necessary to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation for all vessels transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0897 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 Lieutenant Allan Storm, Sector Jacksonville, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 904-714-7616, 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 § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard, with the recommendation from the St. Johns Bar Pilot Association (SJBPA) and Jacksonville Marine Transportation Exchange (JMTX) Harbor Safety Committee, developed the dedicated offshore anchorage area approximately 7 nautical miles northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to improve the navigational safety, traffic management and port security for the Port of Jacksonville.

    Currently, there is not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean-going vessels arriving at the port of Jacksonville. Vessels have routinely been recommended to anchor 11/2 nautical miles northeast of the “STJ” entrance buoy. However, many mariners are hesitant to anchor in this location due to its proximity to the charted danger area, which is related to unexploded ordinances on the sea floor. Without a designated charted anchorage area, many vessels end up drifting or anchoring in the common approaches to the St. Johns River, creating a potential hazardous condition for all vessels transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. These conditions may worsen with the expected growth in the number of vessels, and the likelihood of large vessels calling on Jacksonville in the near future.

    In 2013, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville hosted a meeting to discuss the establishment of a commercial anchorage off the entrance to the St. Johns River. Members from SJBPA, JMTX, Jacksonville Port Authority, Florida Docking Masters, Army Corp of Engineers, NOAA, local tug companies, and the local Shrimp Producers Association all provided input to the proposed anchorage outlined in this notice. Additionally, in April 2016, Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville conducted a focused Waterways Analysis and Management System (WAMS) study for the proposed offshore anchorage area. No additional findings were found and no comments of concern were received from this WAMS study.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend its anchorage regulations to establish an offshore anchorage area approximately seven nautical miles northeast of the St. Johns River inlet, Florida. There currently is not a dedicated deep draft offshore anchorage for commercial ocean-going vessels arriving at the port of Jacksonville. This action is necessary to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation for all vessels transiting in and out of the Port of Jacksonville. The anchorage area's dimensions are approximately three nautical miles by two nautical miles and would encompass approximately six square nautical miles.

    The anchorage boundaries are described, using precise coordinates, in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this notice.

    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 these statutes and Executive Orders.

    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 costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 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, 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 the OMB 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).

    This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that there will be minimal impact to routine navigation because the proposed anchorage area would not restrict traffic as it is located well outside of the established navigation channel. Vessels would still be able to maneuver in, around, and through the anchorage.

    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 anchorage area 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.

    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 establishing one offshore anchorage ground; the overall size of the anchorage area will be approximately 6 square nautical miles. The anchorage ground is not designated a critical habitat or special management area. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    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 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Add § 110.184 to read as follows:
    § 110.184 Atlantic Ocean, Offshore Jacksonville, FL.

    (a) The anchorage ground. All waters of the Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the following points: Starting at Point 1 in position 30°29.08′ N., 81°18.21′ W.; thence south to Point 2 in position 30°26.06′ N., 81°18.21′ W.; thence east to Point 3 in position 30°26.06′ N., 81°16.05′ W.; thence north to Point 4 in position 30°29.08′ N., 81°16.05′ W.; thence west back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) The regulations. (1) Commercial vessels in the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of the Port of Jacksonville must anchor only within the anchorage area hereby defined and established, except in cases of emergency.

    (2) Before entering the anchorage area, all vessels must notify the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 22A.

    (3) All vessels within the designated anchorage area must maintain a 24-hour bridge watch by a licensed or credentialed deck officer proficient in English, monitoring VHF-FM channel 16. This individual must confirm that the ship's crew performs frequent checks of the vessel's position to ensure the vessel is not dragging anchor.

    (4) Vessels may anchor anywhere within the designated anchorage area provided that: Such anchoring does not interfere with the operations of any other vessels currently at anchorage; and all anchor and chain or cable is positioned in such a manner to preclude dragging.

    (5) No vessel may anchor in a “dead ship” status (that is, propulsion or control unavailable for normal operations) without the prior approval of the COTP Jacksonville. Vessels experiencing casualties such as a main propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment malfunction or which are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance, must immediately notify the COTP Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 22A.

    (6) No vessel may anchor within the designated anchorage for more than 72 hours without the prior approval of the COTP Jacksonville. To obtain this approval, contact the COTP Jacksonville on VHF-FM Channel 22A.

    (7) The COTP Jacksonville may close the anchorage area and direct vessels to depart the anchorage during periods of adverse weather or at other times as deemed necessary in the interest of port safety or security.

    (8) Commercial vessels anchoring under emergency circumstances outside the anchorage area must shift to new positions within the anchorage area immediately after the emergency ceases.

    Dated: April 27, 2017. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09036 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [MB Docket No. 13-249; Report No. 3073] Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petition for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    A Petition for Reconsideration (Petition) has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Andrew Jay Schwartzman, on behalf of Prometheus Radio Project.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before May 19, 2017. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Nessinger, Senior Counsel, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at: (202) 418-2700 or email: Thomas.Ne[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3073, released April 17, 2017. The full text of the Petition is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. It also may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/104101216505007/17-04-10%20Prometheus%20Petition%20for%20Reconsideration%20of%20AMR%20Order%20AS%20FILED.pdf. The Commission will not send a copy of this document pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this document does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: In the Matter of Revitalization of the AM Radio Service, FCC 17-14, released by the Commission on February 24, 2017, in MB Docket 13-249, published at 82 FR 13069, March 9, 2017. The document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08953 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018; FXES11130900000 178 FF09E42000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To Remove the Bone Cave Harvestman From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of 90-day petition finding.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on a petition to remove the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (i.e., “delist” the species) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. However, we ask the public to submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, the Bone Cave harvestman or its habitat at any time.

    DATES:

    The finding announced in this document was made on May 4, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    A copy of the petition is available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018, or by request from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057; or facsimile 512-490-0974. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the finding promptly in the Federal Register.

    At the time we received the petition discussed below (June 2, 2014), the standard for substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to this 90-day petition finding was “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently summarize the status review in our 12-month finding.

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be delisted for one of three reasons: Extinction, recovery, or the original data for classification were in error. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species for the purpose of listing, or recovered for the purpose of delisting, as result of an assessment of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.

    Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Bone Cave Harvestman, Which Is Listed as an Endangered Species Under the Act Species and Range

    The Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) occurs in Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas, and was listed as an endangered species on September 16, 1988 (53 FR 36029). See 58 FR 43818, August 18, 1993, for more information.

    Petition History

    On June 2, 2014, we received a petition from John Yearwood, Kathryn Heidemann, Charles and Cheryl Shell, the Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, the American Stewards of Liberty, and Steven W. Carothers requesting that we remove the endangered Bone Cave harvestman from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The petition clearly identified itself as a petition and included the requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required at that time in 50 CFR 424.14(a). The Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (“Services”) revised the regulations at 50 CFR 424.14 to clarify the procedures under which the Services evaluate petitions effective October 27, 2016 (81 FR 66462; September 27, 2016). We originally received the petition that is the subject of this document on June 2, 2014, with supplemental information received on October 6, 2016. We, therefore, evaluated this petition under the 50 CFR 424.14 requirements that were in effect prior to October 27, 2016, as those requirements applied when the petition and supplemental information were received. At that time, our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding was “that amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted” (50 CFR 424.14(b)(1)). On June 1, 2015, the Service published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register (80 FR 30990) that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action was warranted. On December 15, 2015, the American Stewards of Liberty, Charles and Cheryl Shell, Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust, Kathryn Heidemann, and Robert V. Harrison, Sr., challenged the June 1, 2015, 90-day finding in Federal district court. The Service sought the court's permission to reconsider the 90-day finding. On December 22, 2016, the court ordered the Service to complete a 90-day finding and deliver that finding to the Federal Register on or before March 31, 2017, and subsequently extended to May 1, 2017. This finding addresses the court's order and the 2014 petition.

    Recently, we began publishing multiple 90-day petition findings in a single, batched Federal Register notice and using a template format for supplementary information for each finding, to ensure consistency and transparency among findings. We are providing the supporting information for this finding in both the former single-petition Federal Register notice format that was used for the prior finding, and the new batched-notice template format. Both of these rely on identical information and can be found along with this Federal Register notice at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018. The prior traditional Federal Register notice also includes some additional information not included in the petition review form with respect to information such as representation, redundancy, and resilience.

    Finding

    Based on our review of the petition, sources cited in the petition, and the additional information provided, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that delisting the Bone Cave harvestman may be warranted. Although this finding ends our formal consideration of the petition, we are in the process of conducting a species status assessment and 5-year status review of the Bone Cave harvestman. Specifically, section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to review each listed species' status at least once every 5 years. On April 15, 2015, we published a notice in the Federal Register initiating this review (80 FR 20241). The purpose of a 5-year review is to ensure that listed species have the appropriate level of protection under the Act. In this case, we are developing a species status assessment as a tool to inform the 5-year status review. The 5-year review will consider whether the species' status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review and whether it should be reclassified as threatened or delisted. We invite the public, including the petitioners and other interested parties, to submit new data and information for consideration in this ongoing process.

    The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of this petition can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2017-0018 in the Supporting Documents section. This 90-day finding supersedes the Service's previous June 1, 2015, 90-day finding, and is made pursuant to the court's December 22, 2016, order; the 2014 petition; and the additional reference materials accompanying the petition.

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Austin Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above).

    Authors

    The primary authors of this notice are staff members of the Austin Ecological Services Field Office.

    Authority

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

    Dated: March 20, 2017. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09010 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    82 85 Thursday, May 4, 2017 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Tennessee Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, for discussing potential participants to the hearing on civil asset forfeiture in Tennessee.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 24, 2017, at 12:30 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be by teleconference. Toll-free call-in number: 877-874-1569, conference ID: 2389079.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jeff Hinton, DFO, at [email protected] or (404) 562-7006.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 877-874-1569, conference ID: 2389079. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by May 19, 2017. Written comments may be mailed to the Southern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 61 Forsyth Street, Suite 16T126, Atlanta, GA 30303. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (404) 562-7005, or emailed to Regional Director, Jeffrey Hinton at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Southern Regional Office at (404) 562-7000.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Southern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Tennessee Advisory Committee link: http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=275. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Southern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Call to Order Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman Jeff Hinton, Regional Director Regional Update—Jeff Hinton New Business: Discussion of Potential Participants to the Hearing: Diane DiIanni, Tennessee SAC Chairman/Staff/Advisory Committee Public Participation Adjournment Dated: May 1, 2017. David Mussatt, Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09007 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Subsidy Programs Provided by Countries Exporting Softwood Lumber and Softwood Lumber Products to the United States; Request for Comment AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Commerce) seeks public comment on any subsidies, including stumpage subsidies, provided by certain countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States during the period July 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted within 30 days after publication of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    See the Submission of Comments section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra or Brendan Quinn, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3965 or (202) 482-5848, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 18, 2008, section 805 of Title VIII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Softwood Lumber Act of 2008) was enacted into law. Under this provision, the Secretary of Commerce is mandated to submit to the appropriate Congressional committees a report every 180 days on any subsidy provided by countries exporting softwood lumber or softwood lumber products to the United States, including stumpage subsidies.

    Commerce submitted its last subsidy report on December 16, 2016. As part of its newest report, Commerce intends to include a list of subsidy programs identified with sufficient clarity by the public in response to this notice.1

    1 On April 24, 2017, the Department issued its preliminary determination in the on-going countervailing duty investigation involving Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada. See Certain Softwood Lumber Products From Canada: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 82 FR 19657 (April 28, 2017).

    Request for Comments

    Given the large number of countries that export softwood lumber and softwood lumber products to the United States, we are soliciting public comment only on subsidies provided by countries the exports of which accounted for at least one percent of total U.S. imports of softwood lumber by quantity, as classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule code 4407.1001 (which accounts for the vast majority of imports), during the period July 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. Official U.S. import data published by the United States International Trade Commission Tariff and Trade DataWeb indicate that only one country, Canada, exported softwood lumber to the United States during that time period in amounts sufficient to account for at least one percent of U.S. imports of softwood lumber products. We intend to rely on similar previous six-month periods to identify the countries subject to future reports on softwood lumber subsidies. For example, we will rely on U.S. imports of softwood lumber and softwood lumber products during the period January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017, to select the countries subject to the next report.

    Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy exists where an authority: (i) Provides a financial contribution; (ii) provides any form of income or price support within the meaning of Article XVI of the GATT 1994; or (iii) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution to a person, or entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not differ in substance from practices normally followed by governments, and a benefit is thereby conferred.2

    2See section 771(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    Parties should include in their comments: (1) The country which provided the subsidy; (2) the name of the subsidy program; (3) a brief description (at least 3-4 sentences) of the subsidy program; and (4) the government body or authority that provided the subsidy.

    Submission of Comments

    Persons wishing to comment should file comments by the date specified above. Comments should only include publicly available information. Commerce will not accept comments accompanied by a request that a part or all of the material be treated confidentially due to business proprietary concerns or for any other reason. Any such comments or materials will be returned to the submitter and will not be considered in Commerce's report. Comments must be filed in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) submitted on CD-ROM or by email to the email address of the EC Webmaster, below.

    The comments received will be made available to the public in PDF on the Enforcement and Compliance Web site at the following address: http://enforcement.trade.gov/sla2008/sla-index.html. Any questions concerning file formatting, access on the Internet, or other electronic filing issues should be addressed to Laura Merchant, Enforcement and Compliance Webmaster, at (202) 482-0367, email address: [email protected]

    All comments and submissions in response to this Request for Comment should be received by Commerce no later than 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the above-referenced deadline date.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08956 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-924] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip from the People's Republic of China for the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective May 4, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eli Lovely, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1593.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On January 13, 2017, based on a timely request for review by Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, the petitioners), the Department of Commerce (Commerce) published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) with respect to four companies for the period of review (POR) November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016.1 On February 16, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioners timely withdrew their request for an administrative review for all of the companies for which Commerce initiated a review.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 4294 (January 13, 2017) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of Commerce “Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated February 16, 2017.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, the petitioners timely withdrew their review request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. Therefore, in response to the timely withdrawal of the request for review, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC for the period November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because this administrative review is being rescinded in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertain shall be assessed antidumping duties that are equal to the cash deposits 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). Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

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

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final 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(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08992 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2017-HQ-0005] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Institute for Water Resources, Navigation and Civil Works Decision Support Center, 7701 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868, ATTN: Steven D. Riley or call 703-428-6380.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) Waterway Traffic Report; ENG FORM 3102C and 3102D; OMB Control Number 0710-0008.

    Needs and Uses: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers utilizes the data collected to monitor and analyze the use and operation of federally owned or operated locks. General data of vessel identification, tonnage, and commodities are supplied by the master of vessels and all locks owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The information is used for sizing and scheduling replacements, the timing of rehabilitation or maintenance actions, and the setting of operation procedures and closures for locks and canals.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit.

    Annual Burden Hours: 26,312.

    Number of Respondents: 6,529.

    Responses per Respondent: 93.

    Annual Responses: 607,197.

    Average Burden per Response: 2.6 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are vessel operators who provide the vessel identification, tonnage and community information as stipulated on ENG Form 3012C, Waterway Traffic Report—Vessel Log or ENG form 3102D, Waterway Traffic Report—Detail Vessel Log. The information is applied to navigation system management to identify and prioritize lock maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. It is also used to measure waterway performance and the level of service of the national waterway systems.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08964 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2017-HA-0001] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 5, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Researcher Responsibility Acknowledgment; OMB Control Number 0720-0042.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement.

    Number of Respondents: 89.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 89.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 45.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to document researcher's understanding and acceptance of the regulatory and ethical responsibilities pertaining to humans as subjects in research. Principal and associate investigators must have the proposed, signed form on file before they may engage in research conducted or supported by entities under the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)).

    Affected Public: Federal Government; Business or Other For-Profit; Not-For-Profit Institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Stephanie Tatham.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Stephanie Tatham, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09019 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors will take place.

    DATES:

    Open to public Wednesday, May 17, 2017, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address of the open meeting is Defense Acquisition University, 9820 Belvoir Road, Building 202, Command Conference Room, Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caren Hergenroeder, (703) 805-5134 (Voice), (703) 805-5909 (Facsimile), [email protected] (Email). Mailing address is Protocol Director, DAU, 9820 Belvoir Rd., Fort Belvoir, VA 22060. Web site: https://www.dau.mil/about/P/Board-of-Visitors. The most up-to-date changes to the meeting agenda can be found on the Web site.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors is unable to provide public notification, as required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a), for its meeting on May 17, 2017. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting is to report back to the USD(AT&L) on continuing items of interest.

    Agenda:

    9:00 a.m. Welcome and Announcements 9:05 a.m. DAU Update 9:35 a.m. Strategic Planning 10:30 a.m. Board Presentations 12:00 p.m. Board Members Working Lunch 1:00 p.m. Current and Upcoming Initiatives 3:30 p.m. Summary Discussion 4:00 p.m. Adjourn

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and the availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. However, because of space limitations, allocation of seating will be made on a first-come, first served basis. Persons desiring to attend the meeting should call Ms. Caren Hergenroeder at 703-805-5134.

    Written Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140, and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors about its mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting of the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors.

    All written statements shall be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer for the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.

    Statements being submitted in response to the agenda mentioned in this notice must be received by the Designated Federal Officer at least five calendar days prior to the meeting which is the subject of this notice. Written statements received after this date may not be provided to or considered by the Defense Acquisition University Board of Visitors until its next meeting.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact:Ms. Christen Goulding, 703-805-5412, [email protected]

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09008 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2015-0004] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Marine Corps announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, Regulatory and Advisory Committee Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Suite 08D09B, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Children, Youth and Teen Programs (CYTP), Marine and Family Programs Division (MFY-3), 3280 Russell Road, Marsh Center, Quantico, VA 22134, or call CYTP at 703-784-9553.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: USMC Children, Youth and Teen Programs (CYTP) Registration Packet; NAVMC 11720, NAVMC 1750/4, and NAVMC 1750/5; OMB Control Number 0703-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collected on these forms is used by Marine Corps Family Care Programs (MFP) and Inclusion Action Team (IAT) professionals for purposes of patron registration, to determine the general health status of patrons participating in CYTP activities and if necessary the appropriate accommodations for the patron for full enjoyment of CYTP services, and provides consent for information to be exchanged between MFP personnel and other designated individuals or organizations about a patron participating in MFP. These forms may potentially be completed by a member of the public. Collected information will be filed pursuant to the Privacy Act System of Records Notice NM01754-3.

    NAVMC 1750/5 USMC Children, Youth & Teen Programs (CYTP) Registration Form

    Annual Burden Hours: 56,000.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    NAVMC 1750/4 USMC Children, Youth & Teen Programs (CYTP) Health Assessment and Health Screening Tool for Inclusion Action Team (IAT)

    Annual Burden Hours: 56,000.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    NAVMC 11720 USMC Family Care Programs—Consent to Release Information

    Annual Burden Hours: 19,040.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Total

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 131,040.

    Number of Respondents: 112,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 112,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 70 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondents are MFP patrons who provide information to MFP and IAT personnel in order to allow the child to participate in CYTP activities, determine the general health status of patrons participating in CYTP activities, and if necessary, determine the appropriate accommodations for the patron for full enjoyment of CYTP services, and provide consent for information about the patron from other specified individuals and organizations. These forms provide CYTP personnel with demographic information and emergency contact information. It also allows parents/guardians to provide consent for specific activities that may take place while participating in CYTP. Failure to provide information may limit MFP's ability to properly consider participants' health and special needs, adversely impact individuals from participation in CYTP activities, and will limit MFP's ability to communicate with organizations or individuals outside of DoD which may adversely affect available services. Having these forms is essential in providing the requested child care services and activities to all CYTP participants, and maintaining the continuity of care, safety and health of CYTP participants.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09027 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0060] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Talent Search (TS) Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 3, 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-0060. 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 Craig Pooler, 202-453-6195.

    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: Talent Search (TS) Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0826.

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

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

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 478.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,604.

    Abstract: Talent Search grantees must submit the report annually. The report provides the Department of Education with information needed to evaluate a grantee's performance and compliance with program requirements and to award prior experience points in accordance with the program regulations. The data collection is also aggregated to provide information on project participants and program outcomes.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08998 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs—Native American Language ([email protected]) Program AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Indian Education Discretionary Grants Programs—[email protected] Program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.415B.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: May 4, 2017.

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 8, 2017.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 19, 2017.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 17, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W207, Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 401-0274 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purposes of the [email protected] program are to:

    (1) Support schools that use Native American and Alaska Native languages as the primary language of instruction;

    (2) Maintain, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans and Alaska Natives to use, practice, maintain, and revitalize their languages, as envisioned in the Native American Languages Act of 1990 (25 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.); and

    (3) Support the Nation's First Peoples' efforts to maintain and revitalize their languages and cultures, and to improve educational opportunities and student outcomes within Native American and Alaska Native communities.

    Background

    Section 6133 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),1 as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), authorizes the [email protected] program. The program provides discretionary grants to develop, maintain, improve, or expand programs that support elementary or secondary schools in using Native American and Alaska Native languages as the primary language of instruction. Section 6133 of the ESEA references the Native American Languages Act of 1990, in which Congress recognized the fundamental importance of preserving Native American languages. The Native American Languages Act of 1990 states that it is the policy of the United States to “preserve, protect, and promote the rights and freedom of Native Americans to use, practice, and develop Native American languages,” as well as “to encourage and support the use of Native American languages as a medium of instruction in order to encourage and support—

    1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the ESEA are to the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.

    (A) Native American language survival,

    (B) Educational opportunity,

    (C) Increased student success and performance,

    (D) Increased student awareness and knowledge of their culture and history, and

    (E) Increased student and community pride.” (25 U.S.C. 2903.)

    This Federal policy is supported by growing recognition of the importance of Native language use and preservation in facilitating educational success and other positive outcomes for Native students, including student well-being as reflected in the invitational priority for this competition.

    The Native Language Shift and Retention study, funded through an Institute of Education Sciences grant, found that the majority of Native youth surveyed valued their Native language, viewed it as integral to their sense of self, wanted to learn it, and viewed it as a means of facilitating their success in school and life.2 Collaborative efforts between educators, families, and communities, the study suggests, may be especially promising ways to ensure that all Native students have the critical opportunity to learn their Native language.

    2 Romero-Little, M.E., McCarty, T.L., Warhol, L., and Zepeda, O. (2007). Language policies in practice: Preliminary findings from a large-scale study of Native American language shift. TESOL Quarterly 41:3, 607-618.

    Indian students and tribal communities have made progress in reinvigorating efforts to preserve and restore Native languages and culture; building tribal capacity to shape and engage in the education of Native students; and raising awareness about school climate issues that are often unique to Indian students and communities, including issues related to student mental health and educator cultural competency. This new [email protected] program builds on these efforts. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) held tribal consultations on this new [email protected] program in 2016. In addition to four tribal consultations conducted in Indian country, the Department also held two interactive consultation webinars, which were attended by tribal school educators, tribal officials, representatives of Native American organizations, and others to obtain feedback on specific questions relating to the design of the grant program.

    We learned through the consultations that tribes and interested Native Americans are very enthusiastic about the opportunity that the [email protected] program presents. Nearly half of webinar participants favored having the program focus on instruction in the Native language and professional development, while about one-fourth favored a priority for projects that develop assessments in the Native language. Webinar participants were also interested in supporting projects in a variety of school settings, e.g., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)-funded schools, and tribally funded schools. The vast majority of participants favored allowing pre- and post-assessments of Native language proficiency to be in either oral or written format, and favored requiring a tribe as a partner in every project. Finally, webinar participants overwhelmingly supported the concept of long-term data collection in order to show the positive impact of instruction through Native languages.

    The priorities and selection criteria for this competition reflect the input received through these tribal consultations. The absolute priorities reflect the input we received regarding the desire for diversity in the school settings for projects. The selection criteria reflect input regarding Native language instruction, professional development of staff, and long-term data collection.

    Priorities: This competition contains two absolute priorities, two competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. We are establishing these priorities for the FY 2017 grant competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities. Under this competition, each absolute priority constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted. Applicants must choose one of the two absolute priorities, and must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses.

    These priorities are:

    Absolute Priority 1.

    Projects that will take place in one or more schools of a State-funded local educational agency (LEA), including a public charter school that is an LEA under State law, and that will support Native American or Alaska Native language education and development, as well as provide professional development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators, to strengthen the overall language and academic goals of the school that will be served by the project.

    Absolute Priority 2.

    Projects that will take place in one or more schools funded by the BIE, an Indian tribe, a tribal college or university (TCU), an Alaska Native Regional Corporation (as described in section 3(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(g))), or a private, tribal, or Alaska Native nonprofit organization, and that will support Native American or Alaska Native language education and development, as well as provide professional development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators, to strengthen the overall language and academic goals of the school(s) that will be served by the project.

    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award five points to an application that meets either of the priorities and 10 points to an application that meets both of these priorities.

    These priorities are:

    Competitive Preference Priority 1 (0 or 5 points).

    We will award five points to an application for a project in which either the lead applicant or a partner receives, or is eligible to receive, a formula grant under title VI of the ESEA, and commits to use all or part of that formula grant to help sustain this project after conclusion of the grant period. To meet this priority, an applicant must include a statement that indicates the school year in which the entity will begin using title VI formula grant funds to help support this project; what percentage of the title VI grant will be used for this; and the timeline for obtaining parent committee input and approval of this action, if necessary.

    Competitive Preference Priority 2 (0 or 5 points).

    We will award five points to an application submitted by an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or TCU that is eligible to participate in the [email protected] program. A consortium application of eligible entities that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129 and includes an Indian tribe, Indian organization, or TCU will also be considered eligible to receive preference under this priority. In order to be considered a consortium application, the application must include the consortium agreement, signed by all parties.

    Invitational Priority: For FY 2017 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

    This priority is:

    Projects that include a measure of student well-being, which may include mental health, as one of the project-specific objectives.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for this program under section 6133 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7453) and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA.

    Application Requirements: (1) General requirements. The following requirements apply to all applications submitted under this competition. An applicant must include in its application—

    (a) A completed information form that includes:

    (i) Instructional language. The name of the Native American or Alaska Native language to be used for instruction at the school(s) supported by the eligible entity.

    (ii) Number of students. The number of students to be served by the project and the total number of students attending the school(s).

    (iii) Grade level. Grade level(s) of targeted students in the proposed project.

    (iv) Instructional hours. The number of hours of instruction per week in and through one or more Native American or Alaska Native languages currently being provided to targeted students at such school(s), if any.

    (v) Pre- and post-assessments. Whether a pre- and post-assessment of Native language proficiency is available and, if not, whether grant funds will be used for developing such assessment.

    (vi) Organizational information. For each school included in the project, information regarding the school's organizational governance or affiliations, specifically information about the school's governing entity (such as an LEA, tribal educational agency or department, charter organization, private organization, or other governing entity); the school's accreditation status; any partnerships with institutions of higher education; and any indigenous language schooling and research cooperatives.

    (vii) Program description. A description of how the eligible entity will: Support Native language education and development, and provide professional development for staff, in order to strengthen the overall language and academic goals of the school(s) that will be served by the project; ensure the implementation of rigorous academic content that prepares all students for college and career; and ensure that students progress toward meeting high-level fluency goals in the Native language.

    (b) An assurance that for each school to be included in the project—

    (i) The school is engaged in meeting State or tribally designated long-term goals for students, as may be required by applicable Federal, State, or tribal law;

    (ii) The school assesses students using the Native American or Alaska Native language of instruction, where possible;

    (iii) The qualifications of all instructional and leadership personnel at such school are sufficient to deliver high-quality education through the Native American or Alaska Native language used in the school; and

    (iv) The school will collect and report to the public data relative to student achievement and, if appropriate, rates of high school graduation, career readiness, and enrollment in postsecondary education or workforce development programs, of students who are enrolled in the school's programs.

    (2) Certification. An applicant that is an LEA (including a public charter school that is an LEA), a school operated by the BIE, or a nontribal for-profit or nonprofit organization must submit a certification from an entity described in application requirement (2)(a), containing the assurances described in application requirement (2)(b).

    (a) The certification must be from one of the following entities, on whose land the school or program is located, or that is an entity served by the school, or whose members (as defined by that entity) are served by the school:

    (i) An Indian tribe or tribal organization.

    (ii) A TCU.

    (iii) An Alaska Native Regional Corporation or an Alaska Native nonprofit organization.

    (iv) A Native Hawaiian organization.

    (b) The certification must state that—

    (i) The school or applicant organization has the capacity to provide education primarily through a Native American or an Alaska Native language; and

    (ii) There are sufficient speakers of the target language at the school or available to be hired by the school or applicant organization.

    (c) If the applicant is an LEA, the tribe also certifies that it has been consulted on the contents of this application as required under ESEA section 8538.

    ISDEAA Statutory Hiring Preference

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

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

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

    (b) For purposes of the ISDEAA statutory hiring preference only, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian tribe.

    Definitions: The following definitions apply to this competition. For the purposes of this competition, we establish the definitions for “elementary school,” “Indian organization,” “performance target,” “secondary school,” and “tribe,” in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). The definitions of “Native American” and “Native American language” are from sections 8101(34) and 6151(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7801(34) and 7491(3)), and section 103 of the Native American Languages Act (25 U.S.C. 2902). The definition of “tribal college or university” is from section 6133 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7453) and section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1059c). All other definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1.

    Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for individuals or entities affected by the grant, or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure.

    Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set.

    Elementary school means, for State-funded public schools, a day or residential school that provides elementary education, as determined under State law. The term means, for tribally controlled schools, a day or residential school that provides elementary education as determined under tribal law. The definition of “elementary school” may include pre-kindergarten if included in the State or tribal definition of elementary education.

    Indian organization means an organization that—

    (1) Is legally established—

    (i) By tribal or inter-tribal charter or in accordance with State or tribal law; and

    (ii) With appropriate constitution, by-laws, or articles of incorporation;

    (2) Includes in its purposes the promotion of the education of Indians;

    (3) Is controlled by a governing board, the majority of which is Indian;

    (4) If located on an Indian reservation, operates with the sanction of or by charter from the governing body of that reservation;

    (5) Is neither an organization or subdivision of, nor under the direct control of, any institution of higher education; and

    (6) Is not an agency of State or local government.

    Native American means: (1) “Indian” as defined in section 6151(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7491(3)), which includes individuals who are Alaska Natives and members of federally recognized or State recognized tribes; (2) Native Hawaiian; or (3) Native American Pacific Islander.

    Native American language means the historical, traditional languages spoken by Native Americans.

    Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or metric used to gauge program or project performance.

    Performance target means the goal for the number and percentage of participants to meet each performance measure each period of the project and as a result of a project. The performance targets should increase for each project period with the goal that students progress toward high-level fluency in the Native language.

    Secondary school means a day or residential school that provides secondary education as determined under State or tribal law.

    Tribal college or university means an institution that—

    (1) Qualifies for funding under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or the Navajo Community College Act (25 U.S.C. 640a note); or

    (2) Is cited in section 532 of the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 note).

    Tribe means either a federally recognized tribe or a State-recognized tribe.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7453.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

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

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

    Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide, on an annualized basis, $5,554,421 for Indian Education National Activities, of which we would use an estimated $1,100,000 for this [email protected] competition.

    The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

    Estimated Range of Awards: $125,000-$300,000 per year.

    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $215,000 per year.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $300,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 4-8.

    Note:

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

    Project Period: Up to 36 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: The following entities, either alone or in a consortium, that have a plan to develop and maintain, or to improve and expand, programs that support the entity's use of a Native American or Alaska Native language as the primary language of instruction in one or more elementary or secondary schools (or both) are eligible under this program:

    (a) An Indian tribe.

    (b) A TCU.

    (c) A tribal educational agency.

    (d) An LEA, including a public charter school that is an LEA under State law.

    (e) A school operated by the BIE.

    (f) An Alaska Native Regional Corporation, as described in section 3(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602(g)).

    (g) A tribal, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or other nonprofit organization.

    (h) A nontribal for-profit organization.

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

    3. Other: Projects funded under this competition are encouraged to budget for a two-day Project Directors' meeting in Washington, DC during each year of the project period.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.415B.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person listed under Accessible Format in section VII of this notice.

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

    Notice of Intent to Apply: We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by emailing [email protected] with the subject line “Intent to Apply” and include in the content of the email the following information: (1) The applicant organization's name and address, and (2) the Native language on which the project would focus. Applicants that do not provide notice of their intent to apply may still submit an application.

    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you limit the application narrative to no more than 35 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

    The suggested page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, resumes, bibliography, or letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.

    b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the [email protected] program, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

    Consistent with the process followed from the Office of Indian Education discretionary grant competitions, we may post the project narrative section of funded [email protected] program applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.

    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 8, 2017.

    Date of Pre-Application Meeting: We intend to hold webinars to provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Detailed information regarding these meetings will be provided on the [email protected] program Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/index.html.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 19, 2017.

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

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

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

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 17, 2017.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: Not more than five percent of the funds provided to a grantee may be used for administrative costs (ESEA section 6133(g)). We reference regulations outlining other funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

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

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

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

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

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the [email protected] program, CFDA number 84.415B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for [email protected] program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this program by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.415 not 84.415B).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, flattened Portable Document Format (PDF), meaning any fillable PDF documents must be saved as flattened non-fillable files. Therefore, do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, flattened PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. There is no need to password protect a file in order to meet the requirement to submit a read-only, flattened PDF. And, as noted above, the Department will not review password-protected files.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m. Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m. Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: John Cheek, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W207, Washington, DC 20202. FAX: (202) 401-0274.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you submit your application in paper format by mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier), you must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.415B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.415B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: For the purposes of this competition, we are establishing selection criteria, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). We are also using selection criteria for this competition from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.

    (a) Quality of the project design. (Up to 15 Points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

    (2) The extent to which the project design will ensure that students progress toward high-level fluency goals in the Native language.

    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

    (4) The extent to which the project includes a plan for data collection and reporting to track long-term student academic and other outcomes after the project is complete.

    (b) Quality of project services. (Up to 20 Points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The quality of the plan for supporting Native American or Alaska Native language education and development by providing instruction of or through the Native language. (Up to 7 points)

    (2) The extent to which the project will provide professional development for teachers and, as appropriate, staff and administrators to strengthen the overall language proficiency and academic goals of the school(s) that will be served by the project, including cultural competence training to all staff in the school(s). (Up to 6 points)

    (3) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services. (Up to 4 points)

    (4) The extent to which the percentage of the school(s) day that instruction will be provided in the Native language is ambitious and is reasonable for the grade level and population served. (Up to 3 points)

    (c) Quality of project personnel. (Up to 10 Points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.

    In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which teachers of the Native language are identified as staff for this project, have teaching experience, and are fluent in the Native language.

    (2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.

    (d) Adequacy of resources. (Up to 20 Points)

    The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which the applicant or a partner has experience in operating a Native language program. (Up to 10 points)

    (2) The extent to which the costs of the project are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (Up to 6 points)

    (3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support. (Up to 4 points)

    (e) Quality of the management plan. (Up to 15 Points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.

    (2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

    (f) Quality of the project evaluation. (Up to 20 Points)

    The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

    (1) The extent to which each proposed performance target is ambitious, yet achievable, compared to the baseline for each performance measure. (Up to 8 Points)

    (2) The quality of the applicant's plan to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, including the applicant's capacity to collect such data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research. (Up to 7 Points)

    (3) The extent to which the data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use to track long-term student academic outcomes after the project is complete are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data. (Up to 5 Points)

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(2)(3), the rank order of the applications, any information relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that applies to the selection of applications for new grants, the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Each grantee is required under section 6133 of the ESEA to submit annually to the Secretary information on the activities carried out with these grant funds, the number of children served by the project, and the number of instructional hours in the Native language.

    (d) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on achievement. One important source of program information on successes and lessons learned is the project evaluation conducted under individual grants.

    (a) Measures. The Department has identified the following GPRA performance measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the [email protected] program:

    Measure 1: The number and percentage of participating students who attain proficiency in a Native language, as determined by each grantee through pre- and post-assessments of Native language proficiency.

    Measure 2: The number and percentage of participating students who make progress in learning a Native language, as determined by each grantee through pre- and post-assessments of Native language proficiency.

    Measure 3: The number and percentage of participating students who show an improvement in academic outcomes, as measured by academic assessments or other indicators.

    Measure 4: The difference between the average daily attendance of participating students and the average daily attendance of all students in the comparison group (e.g., school, LEA, tribe, or other).

    (b) Baseline data. Applicants must provide baseline data for each of the GPRA performance measures listed in paragraph (a) and include why each proposed baseline is valid; or, if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, explain why there is no established baseline and explain how and when, during the project period, the applicant will establish a valid baseline for the performance measure.

    (c) Performance measure targets. The applicant must propose in its application annual targets for the measures listed in paragraph (a). Applications must also include the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):

    (1) Why each proposed performance target is ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.

    (2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data.

    (3) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use after the project is complete to track long-term student academic outcomes, and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data.

    (4) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

    Note:

    If the applicant does not have experience with collecting and reporting performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.

    (d) Performance reports. All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures. The Department will consider this data in making annual continuation awards.

    (e) Department evaluations. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program must comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Jason Botel, Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09043 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES Privacy Act System of Records Notice; EIB 2017-0002—Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS) ACTION:

    Notice of new electronic Privacy Act system of records. EIB 2017-0002—Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS).

    SUMMARY:

    The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM Bank) proposes to add a new electronic system of records to coincide with migrating its personnel and payroll administration to the Department of Interior (DOI) Interior Business Center's (IBC) Federal Personnel and Payroll Systems (FPPS) and Time and Attendance system known as Quicktime, which are subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522a), as amended. This notice is required to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act, which is to publish in the Federal Register a notice of the existence and character of records maintained by the agency (5 U.S.C. 522a(e)(4)). Included in this notice is the System of Records Notice (SORN) for FPPS and Quicktime. The system will be operational in the next 60 days. EXIM Bank will rescind current personnel and payroll Systems of Records Notices (SORN) as they cease being operational.

    DATES:

    This action will be effective without further notice on June 4, 2017 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted electronically on www.regulations.gov or by mail to John Lowry, Director, IT Security Systems and Assurance, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FPPS is an online personnel and payroll system providing support to Federal agency customers through DOI's IBC. FPPS is customized to meet customer needs for creating and generating the full life cycle of personnel transactions. FPPS allows for immediate updates and edits of personnel and payroll data.

    Bassam Doughman, Agency Clearance Officer. SYSTEM OF RECORDS NOTICE

    EIB 2017-0002—Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS).

    SYSTEM IDENTIFIER:

    EXIM/FPPS.

    SYSTEM NAME:

    EIB 2017-0002—Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS).

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    This electronic system will be used via a web interface by employees of the EXIM Bank through an electronic database managed by the DOI IBC in Denver, Colorado. FPPS customers will use a web-enabled interface, WebFPPS, to access FPPS through a web browser to perform personnel and payroll tasks. The FPPS functionality of certain applications are only accessible via the IBC or EXIM Bank intranets, and interconnections with the FPPS are outlined in the Interconnection Security Agreement and/or Memorandum of Understanding between EXIM Bank and IBC.

    The system is located and managed at U.S. Department of the Interior, Interior Business Center, Human Resources and Payroll Services, 7301 W Mansfield Ave., MS D-2000, Denver, CO 80235.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THIS SYSTEM:

    The FPPS system data contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on current and former EXIM Bank employees, including volunteers and emergency employees, and limited information regarding employee spouses, dependents, emergency contact, or in the case of an estate, a trustee.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THIS SYSTEM:

    Name, Citizenship, Gender, Birth Date, Group Affiliation, Marital Status, Other Names Used, Truncated SSN, Legal Status, Place of Birth, Security Clearance, Spouse Information, Financial Information, Medical Information Disability Information, Education Information, Emergency Contact, Race/Ethnicity, Social Security Number (SSN), Personal Cell Telephone Number, Personal Email Address, Home Telephone Number, Employment Information, Military Status/Service Mailing/Home Address. Taxpayer Identification Number; Bank Account Information such as Routing and Account Numbers; Beneficiary Information; Savings Bond Co-Owner Name(S) and Information; Family Member and Dependents Information; Professional Licensing and Credentials; Family Relationships; Age; Involuntary Debt (Garnishments or Child Support Payments); Court Order Information; Back Pay Information; User ID; Time and Attendance Data; Leave Time Information; Employee Common Identifier (ECI); Volunteer Emergency Contact Information; Person Number which is a unique number that identifies a person within FPPS; Person Number-Emergency which is a unique number identifying an individual within FPPS for a Leave Share Occurrence; and Person Number-Volunteer which is a unique number identifying an individual within the FPPS Volunteer Database.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    EXIM Bank is authorized to request this information pursuant to the following: The Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended (12 U.S.C. 635 et seq.); 5 U.S.C. 5101, et seq., 5501 et seq., 5525 et seq., and 6301 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 3512; Executive Order 9397 as amended by Executive Order 13478, relating to Federal agency use of Social Security numbers. 31 U.S.C. 3512 et seq.; and 5 CFR part 293.

    PURPOSE:

    EXIM Bank proposes to add a new electronic system of records to coincide with its migration of personnel and payroll administration to the FPPS. FPPS is an online personnel and payroll system providing support to Federal agency customers through interagency agreement with the IBC. FPPS is customized to meet customer needs for creating and generating the full life cycle of personnel transactions. FPPS allows for immediate updates and edits of personnel and payroll data. FPPS also handles regulatory requirements such as specialized pay, garnishments, and special appointment programs. FPPS also operates in batch mode for performing close of business, payroll calculation, and other processes. FPPS customers can use a web-enabled interface, WebFPPS, to access FPPS through a web browser to perform personnel and payroll tasks. FPPS is a major application that consists of several minor applications to include time and attendance applications, a system for creating retirement cards and updating retirement records, a system for converting client data for integration into FPPS. The purpose of this system is to ensure proper payment of salary and benefits to EXIM personnel, and to track time worked, leave, or other absences for reporting and compliance purposes. Use of this system will streamline EXIM Bank's personnel, payroll and other human resources functions into a unified, secure system, thereby improving employee input into these systems while enhancing data integrity and security and improving operational efficiency.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures that are generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities determined to be relevant and necessary outside EXIM Bank as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    a. EXIM Bank employees will have access to their own data.

    b. Data will be accessed by officials and employees of EXIM in the performance of their official duties, including, but not limited to, employees of the Division of Human Capital, Office of General Counsel, Office of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of Inspector General.

    c. EXIM Bank is sharing this data with IBC as the service provider for FPPS.

    d. FPPS data is shared and reported to other Federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury and the Office of Personnel Management, as required for human resources, payroll, and tax purposes.

    e. FPPS data may be shared with other Federal agencies pursuant to applicable law.

    f. FPPS data may be shared with the Department of Justice in the event information is required for litigation or law enforcement purposes and to any administrative State or Federal court in a relevant litigation matter (subject to appropriate process).

    g. To provide information to a Congressional Office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that Office;

    h. For investigations of potential violations of law;

    i. By National Archives and Records Administration for record management inspections in its role as Archivist;

    j. For data breach and mitigation response.

    k. Disclosure to consumer reporting agencies:

    Disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12). Disclosures may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) or the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).

    STORAGE:

    Data will be stored electronically by IBC. Data is protected by the following electronic security systems: Password, Firewall, Encryption, User ID, Intrusion Detection System, Virtual Private Network (VPN), Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) Certificates, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Card.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    FPPS authorized users, including EXIM authorized Human Capital personnel, may retrieve information on an individual using full name, SSN and Employee Common Identifier (ECI). Certain personnel within EXIM and IBC, involved in operations and maintenance of FPPS payroll operations, can retrieve information on an individual using:

    • ECI—unique number identifying employees across Federal automated systems.

    • SSN and full name.

    • Person Number—unique number which identifies a person within FPPS.

    • Person Number-Emergency—unique number identifying an individual within FPPS for a leave share occurrence.

    • Person Number-Volunteer—unique number identifying an individual within the FPPS volunteer database.

    • Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)—unique number identifying a trustee for the estate of a deceased employee.

    Additionally, reports can be produced on an individual containing many of the data elements in FPPS. FPPS also routinely generates a variety of reports related to employment that are required by law, such as Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms (1099-MISC and W-2); reports of withholdings and contributions for benefits and union dues; and reports on individuals who are delinquent on child-support payments. Access to the reports is limited to employees who process or file the reports and individuals who are granted access on a need-to-know basis. Copies of the reports may also be provided to government entities as required by law, such as tax forms to the IRS.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Information about individuals whose data is in FPPS cannot be retrieved without knowing specific information about the employee. FPPS supports a full suite of human resources functions, including calculating payroll. The data in FPPS is necessary to perform those functions and to comply with related Federal laws and regulations. To prevent misuse, (e.g., unauthorized browsing) EXIM Bank signed a Service Level Agreement (SLA) with the IBC to clearly establish and document IBC and client security roles and responsibilities. Most of the employee data in FPPS is collected from individuals and entered into FPPS by an authorized Federal human resources professional with access to the system.

    The FPPS system has undergone a formal Security Authorization and Accreditation and has been granted an authority to operate by DOI in accordance with FISMA and NIST standards. FPPS is rated as FISMA moderate based upon the type of data, and it requires strict security and privacy controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the sensitive PII contained in the system.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    Both EXIM Bank and IBC maintain records as needed under NARA approved records schedules for the retention of reports and data. Specifically, General Records Schedule (GRS) 1, “Civilian Personnel Records” and GRS 2 “Payrolling and Pay Administration Records,” would be applicable to the FPPS system.

    EXIM Bank is responsible for purging employee data according to the records schedule after an employee's access authority is terminated or the employee retires, changes jobs, or dies. The IBC may purge or delete any customer payroll or personnel records if it is agreed upon in the Inter-Agency Agreement with the IBC.

    SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:

    Chief Human Capital Officer, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:

    Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by accessing EXIM Bank's Web page: http://www.exim.gov/about/freedom-information-act/privacy-act-requests.

    By email to [email protected] or by U.S. mail to: “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST”, Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    The request must include a return address that identifies individual's street name/number and must (1) include verification of identity attesting that the requesting individual is the record's subject (or his/her legal guardian) or a notarized consent form from the record's subject; and (2) clearly identifies the particular record(s). Record(s) at issue must be described in sufficient detail to enable EXIM Bank staff to conduct a search for the requested records.

    CONTESTING OR AMENDING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Individuals wishing to contest records or to make an amendment of records about them may do so by accessing EXIM Bank's Web page: http://www.exim.gov/about/freedom-information-act/privacy-act-requests.

    By email to [email protected] or by U.S. mail to: “PRIVACY ACT REQUEST”, Freedom of Information and Privacy Office, 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20571.

    The procedures for requesting amendment are to submit the request in writing; including a description of the information to be amended; reason for amendment; type of amendment sought and copies of available evidence supporting the request.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Sources of information are generated through employee resources and obtained using one of three methods: Manual entry, direct database connection to supply the required information, and through consumption of source flat files imported using PL/SQL procedural upload to the FPPS database.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THIS SYSTEM:

    None.

    Kita L. Hall, Program Specialist, Office of the General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08995 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0185] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission Under Delegated Authority AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 3, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0185.

    Title: Section 73.3613, Filing of Contracts.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit entities; not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,400 respondents and 2,400 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.25 to 0.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Total Annual Burden: 975 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $135,000.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collections is contained in Section 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this information collection.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection contained in 47 CFR 73.3613 currently requires each licensee or permittee of a commercial or noncommercial AM, FM, TV or International broadcast station shall file with the FCC copies of the following contracts, instruments, and documents together with amendments, supplements, and cancellations (with the substance of oral contracts reported in writing), within 30 days of execution thereof:

    (a) Network service: Network affiliation contracts between stations and networks will be reduced to writing and filed as follows:

    (1) All network affiliation contracts, agreements, or understandings between a TV broadcast or low power TV station and a national network. For the purposes of this paragraph the term network means any person, entity, or corporation which offers an interconnected program service on a regular basis for 15 or more hours per week to at least 25 affiliated television licensees in 10 or more states; and/or any person, entity, or corporation controlling, controlled by, or under common control with such person, entity, or corporation.

    (2) Each such filing on or after May 1, 1969, initially shall consist of a written instrument containing all of the terms and conditions of such contract, agreement or understanding without reference to any other paper or document by incorporation or otherwise. Subsequent filings may simply set forth renewal, amendment or change, as the case may be, of a particular contract previously filed in accordance herewith.

    (3) The FCC shall also be notified of the cancellation or termination of network affiliations, contracts for which are required to be filed by this section.

    (b) Ownership or control: Contracts, instruments or documents relating to the present or future ownership or control of the licensee or permittee or of the licensee's or permittee's stock, rights or interests therein, or relating to changes in such ownership or control shall include but are not limited to the following:

    (1) Articles of partnership, association, and incorporation, and changes in such instruments;

    (2) Bylaws, and any instruments effecting changes in such bylaws;

    (3) Any agreement, document or instrument providing for the assignment of a license or permit, or affecting, directly or indirectly, the ownership or voting rights of the licensee's or permittee's stock (common or preferred, voting or nonvoting), such as:

    (i) Agreements for transfer of stock;

    (ii) Instruments for the issuance of new stock; or

    (iii) Agreements for the acquisition of licensee's or permittee's stock by the issuing licensee or permittee corporation. Pledges, trust agreements, options to purchase stock and other executory agreements are required to be filed. However, trust agreements or abstracts thereof are not required to be filed, unless requested specifically by the FCC. Should the FCC request an abstract of the trust agreement in lieu of the trust agreement, the licensee or permittee will submit the following information concerning the trust:

    (A) Name of trust;

    (B) Duration of trust;

    (C) Number of shares of stock owned;

    (D) Name of beneficial owner of stock;

    (E) Name of record owner of stock;

    (F) Name of the party or parties who have the power to vote or control the vote of the shares; and

    (G) Any conditions on the powers of voting the stock or any unusual characteristics of the trust.

    (4) Proxies with respect to the licensee's or permittee's stock running for a period in excess of 1 year, and all proxies, whether or not running for a period of 1 year, given without full and detailed instructions binding the nominee to act in a specified manner. With respect to proxies given without full and detailed instructions, a statement showing the number of such proxies, by whom given and received, and the percentage of outstanding stock represented by each proxy shall be submitted by the licensee or permittee within 30 days after the stockholders' meeting in which the stock covered by such proxies has been voted. However, when the licensee or permittee is a corporation having more than 50 stockholders, such complete information need be filed only with respect to proxies given by stockholders who are officers or directors, or who have 1% or more of the corporation's voting stock. When the licensee or permittee is a corporation having more than 50 stockholders and the stockholders giving the proxies are not officers or directors or do not hold 1% or more of the corporation's stock, the only information required to be filed is the name of any person voting 1% or more of the stock by proxy, the number of shares voted by proxy by such person, and the total number of shares voted at the particular stockholders' meeting in which the shares were voted by proxy.

    (5) Mortgage or loan agreements containing provisions restricting the licensee's or permittee's freedom of operation, such as those affecting voting rights, specifying or limiting the amount of dividends payable, the purchase of new equipment, or the maintenance of current assets.

    (6) Any agreement reflecting a change in the officers, directors or stockholders of a corporation, other than the licensee or permittee, having an interest, direct or indirect, in the licensee or permittee as specified by § 73.3615.

    (7) Agreements providing for the assignment of a license or permit or agreements for the transfer of stock filed in accordance with FCC application Forms 314, 315, 316 need not be resubmitted pursuant to the terms of this rule provision.

    (c) Personnel: (1) Management consultant agreements with independent contractors; contracts relating to the utilization in a management capacity of any person other than an officer, director, or regular employee of the licensee or permittee; station management contracts with any persons, whether or not officers, directors, or regular employees, which provide for both a percentage of profits and a sharing in losses; or any similar agreements.

    (2) The following contracts, agreements, or understandings need not be filed: Agreements with persons regularly employed as general or station managers or salesmen; contracts with program managers or program personnel; contracts with attorneys, accountants or consulting radio engineers; contracts with performers; contracts with station representatives; contracts with labor unions; or any similar agreements.

    (d)(1) Time brokerage agreements (also known as local marketing agreements): Time brokerage agreements involving radio stations where the licensee (including all parties under common ownership) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both in the same market as defined in the local radio multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(a), and more than 15 percent of the time of the brokered station, on a weekly basis is brokered by that licensee; time brokerage agreements involving television stations where the licensee (including all parties under common control) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both licensed to the same market as defined in the local television multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(b), and more than 15 percent of the time of the brokered station, on a weekly basis, is brokered by that licensee; time brokerage agreements involving radio or television stations that would be attributable to the licensee under § 73.3555 Note 2, paragraph (i). Confidential or proprietary information may be redacted where appropriate but such information shall be made available for inspection upon request by the FCC.

    (d)(2) Joint sales agreements: Joint sales agreements involving radio stations where the licensee (including all parties under common control) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both in the same market as defined in the local radio multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(a), and more than 15 percent of the advertising time of the brokered station on a weekly basis is brokered by that licensee; joint sales agreements involving television stations where the licensee (including all parties under common control) is the brokering entity, the brokering and brokered stations are both in the same market as defined in the local television multiple ownership rule contained in § 73.3555(b), and more than 15 percent of the advertising time of the brokered station on a weekly basis is brokered by that license. Confidential or proprietary information may be redacted where appropriate but such information shall be made available for inspection upon request by the FCC.

    (e) The following contracts, agreements or understandings need not be filed but shall be kept at the station and made available for inspection upon request by the FCC; subchannel leasing agreements for Subsidiary Communications Authorization operation; franchise/leasing agreements for operation of telecommunications services on the television vertical blanking interval and in the visual signal; time sales contracts with the same sponsor for 4 or more hours per day, except where the length of the events (such as athletic contests, musical programs and special events) broadcast pursuant to the contract is not under control of the station; and contracts with chief operators.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08955 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [DA 17-400] Consumer Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission announces the next meeting date, time, and agenda of its Consumer Advisory Committee (hereinafter the “Committee”). The mission of the Committee is to make recommendations to the Commission regarding consumer issues within the jurisdiction of the Commission and to facilitate the participation of consumers (including underserved populations, such as Native Americans, persons living in rural areas, older persons, people with disabilities, and persons for whom English is not their primary language) in proceedings before the Commission.

    DATES:

    May 19, 2017, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Commission Meeting Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Scott Marshall, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2809 (voice or Relay), or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's document DA 17-400, released April 27, 2017, announcing the Agenda, Date, and Time of the Committee's Next Meeting.

    Meeting Agenda

    At its May 19, 2017 meeting, it is anticipated that the Committee will consider a recommendation from its Robocalls Working Group regarding the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry on unwanted robocalls, released March 23, 2017. It is expected that the Committee will also receive presentations by FCC staff and outside speakers on matters of interest to the Committee. A limited amount of time will be available on the agenda for comments from the public.

    If time permits, the public may ask questions of presenters via the email address [email protected] or via Twitter using the hashtag #fcclive. In addition, the public may also follow the meeting on Twitter @fcc or via the Commission's Facebook page at www.facebook.com/fcc. Alternatively, members of the public may send written comments to: Scott Marshall, Designated Federal Officer of the Committee at the address provided below.

    The meeting is open to the public, and the site is fully accessible to people using wheelchairs or other mobility aids. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, such as sign language interpreters, open captioning, assistive listening devices, and Braille copies of the agenda are available upon request. The request should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed and contact information. Please provide as much advance notice as possible; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to fill. To request an accommodation, send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

    Federal Communications Commission. D'wana R. Terry, Acting Deputy Bureau Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08969 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-1174] Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal Communications Commission AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before July 3, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1174.

    Title: Section 73.503, Licensing requirements and service; Section 73.621, Noncommercial educational TV stations; Section 73.3527, Local public inspection file of noncommercial educational stations.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,200 respondents; 33,000 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority which covers these information collections is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 303, and 399B.

    Total Annual Burden: 16,500 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Although the Commission does not believe that any confidential information will need to be disclosed in order to comply with the information collection requirements, applicants are free to request that materials or information submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection. (See 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's Rules).

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On April 20, 2017, the Commission adopted a Report and Order in MB Docket No. 12-106, FCC 17-41, In the Matter of Noncommercial Educational Station Fundraising for Third-Party Non-Profit Organizations. Under the Commission's existing rules, a noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast station may not conduct fundraising activities to benefit any entity besides the station itself if the activities would substantially alter or suspend regular programming. The Report and Order relaxes the rules to allow NCE stations to spend up to one percent of their total annual airtime conducting on-air fundraising activities that interrupt regular programming for the benefit of third-party non-profit organizations. The Report and Order imposes the following information collection requirements on NCE stations:

    Audience disclosure: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.503(e)(1) requires that a noncommercial educational FM broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of third-party non-profit organizations must air a disclosure during such activities clearly stating that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and identifying the entity for which it is fundraising. The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.621(f)(1) requires that a noncommercial educational TV broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of third-party non-profit organizations must air a disclosure during such activities clearly stating that the fundraiser is not for the benefit of the station itself and identifying the entity for which it is fundraising. The audience disclosure must be aired at the beginning and the end of each fundraising program and at least once during each hour in which the program is on the air.

    Retention of information on fundraising activities in local public inspection file: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.3527(e)(14) requires that each noncommercial educational FM broadcast station and noncommercial educational TV broadcast station that interrupts regular programming to conduct fundraising activities on behalf of a third-party non-profit organization must place in its local public inspection file, on a quarterly basis, the following information for each third-party fundraising program or activity: The date, time, and duration of the fundraiser; the type of fundraising activity; the name of the non-profit organization benefitted by the fundraiser; a brief description of the specific cause or project, if any, supported by the fundraiser; and, to the extent that the station participated in tallying or receiving any funds for the non-profit group, an approximation, to the nearest $10,000, of the total funds raised. The information for each calendar quarter is to be filed by the tenth day of the succeeding calendar quarter (e.g., January 10 for the quarter October-December, April 10 for the quarter January-March, etc.).

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08967 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0548, 3060-0652, 3060-0750, 3060-0849, 3060-0967 and 3060-0994] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before June 5, 2017. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0548.

    Title: Section 76.1708, Principal Headend; Sections 76.1709 and 76.1620, Availability of Signals; Section 76.56, Signal Carriage Obligations; Section 76.1614, Identification of Must-Carry Signals.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,100 respondents; 61,200 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in in Sections 4(i), 614 and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 30,600 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in the collection are covered under the following rule sections:

    47 CFR 76.56 requires cable television systems to carry signals of all qualified local Noncommercial Educational (NCE) sting carriage. As a result of this requirement, the following information collection requirements are needed for this collection:

    47 CFR 76.1708 requires that the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection the designation and location of its principal headend. If an operator changes the designation of its principal headend, that new designation must be included in its public file.

    47 CFR 76.1709(a) states effective June 17, 1993, the operator of every cable television system shall maintain for public inspection a file containing a list of all broadcast television stations carried by its system in fulfillment of the must-carry requirements pursuant to 47 CFR 76.56. Such list shall include the call sign; community of license, broadcast channel number, cable channel number, and in the case of a noncommercial educational broadcast station, whether that station was carried by the cable system on March 29, 1990.

    47 CFR 76.1614 and 1709(c) states that a cable operator shall respond in writing within 30 days to any written request by any person for the identification of the signals carried on its system in fulfillment of the requirements of 47 CFR 76.56.

    47 CFR 76.1620 states that if a cable operator authorizes subscribers to install additional receiver connections, but does not provide the subscriber with such connections, or with the equipment and materials for such connections, the operator shall notify such subscribers of all broadcast stations carried on the cable system which cannot be viewed via cable without a converter box and shall offer to sell or lease such a converter box to such subscribers. Such notification must be provided by June 2, 1993, and annually thereafter and to each new subscriber upon initial installation. The notice, which may be included in routine billing statements, shall identify the signals that are unavailable without an additional connection, the manner for obtaining such additional connection and instructions for installation.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0652.

    Title: Section 76.309, Customer Service Obligations; Section 76.1602, Customer Service-General Information, Section 76.1603, Customer Service-Rate and Service Changes and Section 76.1619, Information and Subscriber Bills.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 8,260 respondents; 1,117,540 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.0167 to 1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i) and 632 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 50,090 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission released on October 14, 2010, a Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 10-181, CS Docket 97-80 and PP Docket 00-67, modifying the Commission's rules to implement Section 629 of the Communications Act (Section 304 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996). Section 629 of the Communications Act directs the Commission to adopt rules to assure the commercial availability of “navigation devices,” such as cable set-top boxes. One rule modification in the Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration is intended to prohibit price discrimination against retail devices. This modification requires cable operators to disclose annually the fees for rental of navigation devices and single and additional CableCARDs as well as the fees reasonably allocable to the rental of single and additional CableCARDs and the rental of operator-supplied navigation devices if those devices are included in the price of a bundled offer.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0750.

    Title: 47 CFR 73.671, Educational and Informational Programming for Children; 47 CFR 73.673, Public Information Initiatives Regarding Educational and informational Programming for Children.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,195 respondents; 3,996 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 to 5 minutes.

    Frequency of Response: Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 154(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 29,131 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.671(c)(5) states that a core educational television program must be identified as specifically designed to educate and inform children by the display on the television screen throughout the program of the symbol E/I.

    The information collection requirements contained in 47 CFR 73.673 states each commercial television broadcast station licensee must provide information identifying programming specifically designed to educate and inform children to publishers of program guides. Such information must include an indication of the age group for which the program is intended.

    These requirements are intended to provide greater clarity about broadcasters' obligations under the Children's Television Act (CTA) of 1990 to air programming “specifically designed” to serve the educational and informational needs of children and to improve public access to information about the availability of these programs. These requirements provide better information to the public about the shows broadcasters' air to satisfy their obligation to provide educational and informational programming under the CTA.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0849.

    Title: Commercial Availability of Navigation Devices.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 962 respondents; 65,252 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.00278 hours-40 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement; On occasion reporting requirement; Annual reporting requirement; Semi-annual reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 629 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 15,921 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $2,990.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirements contained in the collection are as follows:

    47 CFR 15.123(c)(3) states subsequent to the testing of its initial unidirectional digital cable product model, a manufacturer or importer is not required to have other models of unidirectional digital cable products tested at a qualified test facility for compliance with the procedures of Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: “Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma” (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38) unless the first model tested was not a television, in which event the first television shall be tested as provided in § 15.123(c)(1). The manufacturer or importer shall ensure that all subsequent models of unidirectional digital cable products comply with the procedures in the Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: “Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma” (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38) and all other applicable rules and standards. The manufacturer or importer shall maintain records indicating such compliance in accordance with the verification procedure requirements in part 2, subpart J of this chapter. The manufacturer or importer shall further submit documentation verifying compliance with the procedures in the Uni-Dir-PICS-I01-030903: “Uni-Directional Receiving Device: Conformance Checklist: PICS Proforma” (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38) to the testing laboratory representing cable television system operators serving a majority of the cable television subscribers in the United States.

    47 CFR 15.123(c)(5)(iii) states subsequent to the successful testing of its initial M-UDCP, a manufacturer or importer is not required to have other M-UDCP models tested at a qualified test facility for compliance with M-Host UNI-DIR-PICS-IOI-061101 (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38) unless the first model tested was not a television, in which event the first television shall be tested as provided in § 15.123(c)(5)(i). The manufacturer or importer shall ensure that all subsequent models of M-UDCPs comply with M-Host UNI-DIR-PICS-IOI-061101 (incorporated by reference, see § 15.38) and all other applicable rules and standards. The manufacturer or importer shall maintain records indicating such compliance in accordance with the verification procedure requirements in part 2, subpart J of this chapter. For each M-UDCP model, the manufacturer or importer shall further submit documentation verifying compliance with M-Host UNI-DIR-PICS-IOI-061101 to the testing laboratory representing cable television system operators serving a majority of the cable television subscribers in the United States.

    47 CFR 76.1203 provides that a multichannel video programming distributor may restrict the attachment or use of navigation devices with its system in those circumstances where electronic or physical harm would be caused by the attachment or operation of such devices or such devices that assist or are intended or designed to assist in the unauthorized receipt of service. Such restrictions may be accomplished by publishing and providing to subscribers standards and descriptions of devices that may not be used with or attached to its system. Such standards shall foreclose the attachment or use only of such devices as raise reasonable and legitimate concerns of electronic or physical harm or theft of service.

    47 CFR 76.1205(a) states that technical information concerning interface parameters which are needed to permit navigation devices to operate with multichannel video programming systems shall be provided by the system operator upon request.

    47 CFR 76.1205(b)(1) states a multichannel video programming provider that is subject to the requirements of Section 76.1204(a)(1) must provide the means to allow subscribers to self-install the CableCARD in a CableCARD-reliant device purchased at retail and inform a subscriber of this option when the subscriber requests a CableCARD. This requirement shall be effective August 1, 2011, if the MVPD allows its subscribers to self-install any cable modems or operator-leased set-top boxes and November 1, 2011 if the MVPD does not allow its subscribers to self-install any cable modems or operator-leased set-top boxes.

    47 CFR 76.1205(b)(1)(A) states that this requirement shall not apply to cases in which neither the manufacturer nor the vendor of the CableCARD-reliant device furnishes to purchasers appropriate instructions for self-installation of a CableCARD, and a manned toll-free telephone number to answer consumer questions regarding CableCARD installation but only for so long as such instructions are not furnished and the call center is not offered.

    The requirements contained in Section 76.1205 are intended to ensure that consumers are able to install CableCARDs in the devices they purchase because we have determined this is essential to a functioning retail market.

    47 CFR 76.1205(b)(2) states effective August 1, 2011, provide multi-stream CableCARDs to subscribers, unless the subscriber requests a single-stream CableCARD. This requirement will ensure that consumers have access to CableCARDs that are compatible with their retail devices, and can request such devices from their cable operators.

    47 CFR 76.1205(b)(5) requires to separately disclose to consumers in a conspicuous manner with written information provided to customers in accordance with Section 76.1602, with written or oral information at consumer request, and on Web sites or billing inserts. This requirement is intended to ensure that consumers understand that retail options are available and that cable operators are not subsidizing their own devices with service fees in violation of Section 629 of the Act.

    47 CFR 76.1207 states that the Commission may waive a regulation related to Subpart P (“Competitive Availability of Navigation Devices”) for a limited time, upon an appropriate showing by a provider of multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems, or an equipment provider that such a waiver is necessary to assist the development or introduction of a new or improved multichannel video programming or other service offered over multichannel video programming systems, technology, or products. Such waiver requests are to be made pursuant to 47 CFR 76.7.

    47 CFR 76.1208 states that any interested party may file a petition to the Commission for a determination to provide for a sunset of the navigation devices regulations on the basis that (1) the market for multichannel video distributors is fully competitive; (2) the market for converter boxes, and interactive communications equipment, used in conjunction with that service is fully competitive; and (3) elimination of the regulations would promote competition and the public interest.

    47 CFR 15.118(a) and 47 CFR 15.19(d) (label and information disclosure)—The U.S. Bureau of the Census reports that, at the end of 2002, there were 571 U.S. establishments that manufacture audio and visual equipment. These manufacturers already have in place mechanisms for labeling equipment and including consumer disclosures in the form of owners' manuals and brochures in equipment packaging. The Commission estimate that manufacturers who voluntarily decide to label their equipment will need no more than 5 hours to develop a label or to develop wording for a consumer disclosure for owners' manuals/brochures to be included with the device. Once developed, we do not anticipate any ongoing burden associated with the revision/modification of the label, if used, or the disclosure.

    Status Reports—Periodic reports are required from large cable multiple system operators detailing CableCARD deployment/support for navigation devices. (This requirement is specified in FCC 05-76, CS Docket No. 97-80).

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0967.

    Title: Section 79.2, Accessibility of Programming Providing Emergency Information, and Emergency Information; Section 79.105, Video Description and Emergency Information Accessibility Requirements for All Apparatus; Section 79.106, Video Description and Emergency Information Accessibility Requirements for Recording Devices.

    Form No.: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, local, or tribal governments.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 61 respondents; 161 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 to 5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Voluntary. The statutory authority for the collection is contained in the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751, and sections 4(i), 4(j), 303, 330(b), 713, and 716 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 303, 330(b), 613, and 617.

    Total Annual Burden: 175 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $15,300.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance,” which became effective on September 24, 2014. The Commission believes that it provides sufficient safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals who file complaints alleging violations of the Commission's televised emergency information rules, 47 CFR 79.2, and complaints alleging violations of the apparatus emergency information and video description requirements, 47 CFR 79.105-79.106.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Informal Complaints, Inquiries, and Requests for Dispute Assistance was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy-Impact-Assessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: In 2000, the Commission adopted rules to require video programming distributors (VPDs) to make emergency information provided in the audio portion of the programming accessible to viewers who have hearing disabilities. Second Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-176, FCC 00-136. Later that year, to ensure that televised emergency information is accessible to viewers who are blind or visually impaired, the Commission modified its rules to require VPDs to make emergency information audible when provided in the video portion of a regularly scheduled newscast or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, and to provide an aural tone when emergency information is provided visually during regular programming (e.g., through screen crawls or scrolls). Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-339, FCC 00-258.

    In 2013, the Commission adopted rules related to accessible emergency information and apparatus requirements for emergency information and video description. Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket Nos. 12-107 and 11-43, FCC 13-45. Specifically, the Commission's rules require that VPDs and video programming providers (VPPs) (including program owners) make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired by using a secondary audio stream to convey televised emergency information aurally, when such information is conveyed visually during programming other than newscasts. The Commission's rules also require certain apparatus that receive, play back, or record video programming to make available video description services and accessible emergency information.

    Finally, in 2015, the Commission adopted rules to require the following: (1) Apparatus manufacturers must provide a mechanism that is simple and easy to use for activating the secondary audio stream to access audible emergency information; and (2) starting no later than July 10, 2017, multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) must pass through the secondary audio stream containing audible emergency information when it is provided on linear programming accessed on second screen devices (e.g., tablets, smartphones, laptops and similar devices) over their networks as part of their MVPD services. Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 12-107, FCC 15-56.

    These rules are codified at 47 CFR 79.2, 79.105, and 79.106.

    Information Collection Requirements

    (a) Complaints alleging violations of the emergency information rules.

    Section 79.2(c) of the Commission's rules provides that a complaint alleging a violation of § 79.2 of its rules, may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), Internet email, audio-cassette recording, Braille, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. After the Commission receives the complaint, the Commission notifies the VPD or VPP of the complaint, and the VPD or VPP has 30 days to reply.

    (b) Complaints alleging violations of the apparatus emergency information and video description requirements.

    Complaints alleging violations of the rules containing apparatus emergency information and video description requirements, 47 CFR 79.105-79.106, may be transmitted to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau by any reasonable means, such as the Commission's online informal complaint filing system, letter in writing or Braille, facsimile transmission, telephone (voice/TRS/TTY), email, or some other method that would best accommodate the complainant's disability. Given that the population intended to benefit from the rules adopted will be blind or visually impaired, if a complainant calls the Commission for assistance in preparing a complaint, Commission staff will document the complaint in writing for the consumer. The Commission will forward such complaints, as appropriate, to the named manufacturer or provider for its response, as well as to any other entity that Commission staff determines may be involved, and may request additional information from any relevant parties when, in the estimation of Commission staff, such information is needed to investigate the complaint or adjudicate potential violations of Commission rules.

    (c) Requests for Commission determination of technical feasibility of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.

    The requirements pertaining to apparatus designed to receive or play back video programming apply only to the extent they are “technically feasible.” Parties may raise technical infeasibility as a defense when faced with a complaint alleging a violation of the apparatus requirements or they may file a request for a ruling under section1.41 of the Commission's rules as to technical infeasibility before manufacturing or importing the product.

    (d) Requests for Commission determination of achievability of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.

    The requirements pertaining to certain apparatus designed to receive, play back, or record video programming apply only to the extent they are achievable. Manufacturers of apparatus that use a picture screen of less than 13 inches in size and of recording devices may petition the Commission, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.41, for a full or partial exemption from the video description and emergency information requirements before manufacturing or importing the apparatus. Alternatively, manufacturers may assert that a particular apparatus is fully or partially exempt as a response to a complaint, which the Commission may dismiss upon a finding that the requirements of this section are not achievable. A petition for exemption or a response to a complaint must be supported with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that compliance with the requirements is not achievable (meaning with reasonable effort or expense), and the Commission will consider four specific factors when making such a determination.

    (e) Petitions for purpose-based waivers of emergency information and video description apparatus requirements.

    The Commission may waive emergency information and video description apparatus requirements for any apparatus or class of apparatus that is (a) primarily designed for activities other than receiving or playing back video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound, or (b) designed for multiple purposes, capable of receiving or playing video programming transmitted simultaneously with sound but whose essential utility is derived from other purposes. The Commission will address any requests for a purpose-based waiver on a case-by-case basis, and waivers will be available prospectively for manufacturers seeking certainty prior to the sale of a device.

    (f) Submission and review of consumer eligibility information pertaining to DIRECTV, LLC's (DIRECTV's) waiver for provision of aural emergency information during The Weather Channel's programming.

    The Commission granted DIRECTV a waiver with respect to the set-top box models on which it is not able to implement audio functionality for emergency information, but conditioned such relief by requiring DIRECTV to provide, upon request and at no additional cost to customers who are blind or visually impaired, a set-top box model that is capable of providing aural emergency information. DIRECTV may require customers who are blind or visually impaired to submit reasonable documentation of disability to DIRECTV as a condition to providing the box at no additional cost.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0994.

    Title: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Band.

    Form No.: Not Applicable.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents: 126 respondents; 126 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.50-50 hours per response.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, one time and annual reporting requirements, third-party disclosure and recordkeeping requirements.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection is contained in Sections 4(i), 7, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157, 302, 303(c), 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r).

    Total Annual Burden: 520 hours.

    Annual Cost Burden: $530,340.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general, there is no need for confidentiality with this collection of information.

    Needs and Uses: This collection will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision following the 60-day comment period in order to obtain the full three-year clearance from OMB.

    On December 23, 2016, the Commission released a Report and Order in IB Docket No. 13-213, FCC 16-181, titled “Terrestrial Use of the 2473-2495 MHz Band for Low-Power Mobile Broadband Networks; Amendments to Rules for the Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) of Mobile Satellite Service Systems.” The revisions to 47 CFR part 25 adopted in the Report and Order remove a portion of the information collection requirements as it relates to a newly proposed low power broadband network, as described in document FCC 16-181. These revisions enable ATC licensees to operate low-power ATC using licensed spectrum in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band. Although the original low-power ATC proposal described the use of the adjacent 2473-2483.5 MHz band, low-power terrestrial operations at 2473-2483.5 MHz were not authorized by the Report and Order. The revisions provide an exception for low-power ATC from the requirements contained in section 25.149(b) of the Commission's rules, which require detailed showings concerning satellite system coverage and replacement satellites. The revisions also provide an exception from a rule requiring integrated service, which generally requires that service handsets be capable of communication with both satellites and terrestrial base stations. Accordingly, the provider of low-power ATC would be relieved from certain burdens that are currently in place in the existing information collection. To qualify for authority to deploy a low-power terrestrial network in the 2483.5-2495 MHz band, an ATC licensee would need to certify that it will utilize a Network Operating System to manage its terrestrial low-power network. Although the Report and Order also created new technical requirements for equipment designed to communicate with a low-power ATC network, satisfaction of these technical requirements relieves ATC licensees from meeting other technical requirements that apply to ATC systems generally. We also had a revision to this information collection to reflect the elimination of the elements of this information collection for 2 GHz MSS. See 78 FR 48621-22.

    The purposes of the existing information collection are to obtain information necessary for licensing operators of Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) networks to provide ancillary services in the U.S. via terrestrial base stations (Ancillary Terrestrial Components, or ATCs); obtain the legal and technical information required to facilitate the integration of ATCs into MSS networks in the L-Band and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands; and to ensure that ATC licensees meet the Commission's legal and technical requirements to develop and maintain their MSS networks and operate their ATC systems without causing harmful interference to other radio systems.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08968 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee; Notice of Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of renewal of the FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), and after consultation with the General Services Administration, the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has determined that renewal of the FDIC Systemic Resolution Advisory Committee (“the Committee”) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the FDIC by law. The Committee has been a successful undertaking by the FDIC and has provided valuable feedback to the agency on a broad range of issues regarding the resolution of systemically important financial companies pursuant to Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Committee will continue to provide advice and recommendations on how the FDIC's systemic resolution authority, and its implementation, may impact regulated entities and other stakeholders potentially affected by the process. The structure and responsibilities of the Committee are unchanged from when it was originally established in May 2011. The Committee will continue to operate in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer of the FDIC, at (202) 898-7043.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08985 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    Date & Time:

    Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on May 11, 2017.

    Place:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

    Status:

    This meeting will be closed to the public.

    Items to be Discussed:

    Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.

    Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices. Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.

    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

    Person to Contact for Information:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09070 Filed 5-2-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 18, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (William Spaniel, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Firetree, Ltd., Williamsport, Pennsylvania, individually and as part of a group acting in concert with Firetree, Ltd., William Brown, Muncy, Pennsylvania; Donna Spitler, and Thomas Spitler, both of Wooster, Ohio; and Perter Went, Jersey City, New Jersey; to retain voting shares of Woodlands Financial Services Company, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, and thereby retain shares of Woodlands Bank, Williamsport, Pennsylvania.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 28, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08960 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

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

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

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 30, 2017.

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

    1. Home Bancshares, Inc., Conway, Arkansas; to acquire 100 percent of Stonegate Bank, Pompano Beach, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 28, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08959 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 161 0221; Docket No. C-4615] Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc; Analysis To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the complaint and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before May 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/emersonelectricconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “In the Matter of Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc, File No. 161 0221” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/emersonelectricconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc, File No. 161 0221” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Platt (212-607-2819) or Ryan Harsch (212-607-2805), FTC, Northeast Region, One Bowling Green, Suite 318, New York, NY 10004.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for April 28, 2017), on the World Wide Web, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 30, 2017. Write “In the Matter of Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc, File No. 161 0221” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/emersonelectricconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Emerson Electric Co. and Pentair plc, File No. 161 0221” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible FTC Web site at www.ftc.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including in particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    Once your comment has been posted on the public FTC Web site—as legally required by FTC Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or remove your comment from the FTC Web site, unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c).

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before May 30, 2017. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    Analysis of Agreement Containing Consent Orders To Aid Public Comment I. Introduction

    The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Orders (“Consent Agreement”) from Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) and Pentair plc (“Pentair”) (collectively, the “Respondents”) that is designed to remedy the anticompetitive effects that would likely result from Emerson's proposed acquisition of Pentair's valves and controls business.

    Pursuant to a Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 18, 2016, Emerson proposes to acquire the equity interests of certain subsidiaries of Pentair in exchange for cash considerations of approximately $3.15 billion (the “Acquisition”). The proposed Acquisition would combine the two largest suppliers of switchboxes, which are industrial valve control products, in the United States. The Commission's Complaint alleges that the proposed Acquisition, if consummated, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 45, by substantially lessening competition in the United States market for switchboxes.

    The proposed Decision and Order (“Order”) requires Emerson to divest Pentair's switchbox manufacturer subsidiary, Westlock Controls Corporation (“Westlock”), to Crane Co. (“Crane”) no later than ten days after the Acquisition is consummated. The divestiture requires Emerson to transfer to Crane all of the facilities, personnel, confidential information, and intellectual property associated with the design, manufacture, and sale of Westlock's products, which will allow Crane to effectively compete in the switchbox market.

    The Commission has placed the Consent Agreement on the public record for 30 days to solicit comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the Consent Agreement, along with any comments received, and decide whether it should withdraw from the Consent Agreement, modify it, or make the Order final.

    II. The Respondents

    Emerson, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a diversified global manufacturing company that provides a variety of products and services for the industrial, commercial, and consumer markets. Through its Automated Solutions segment, Emerson is a leading manufacturer of industrial equipment and instrumentation, including valves, actuators, regulators, and switchboxes, which it sells to customers in, among others, the oil and gas, refining, chemical, and power generation industries.

    Pentair, headquartered in London, United Kingdom, with a main U.S. office located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a global water, fluid, thermal management, and equipment protection company. The Pentair Valves & Controls business manufactures valves, fittings, actuators, and controls, including switchboxes, for a broad array of industrial markets.

    III. The Relevant Markets

    The relevant product market at issue in this transaction is switchboxes. Switchboxes are devices that monitor and control isolation (or “on/off”) valves, which control the flow of liquids or gases through pipes in industrial applications, including the oil and gas, chemical, petrochemical, and power generation industries. Switchboxes consist of a hard outer case, which often is made of explosion-proof material, containing switches and other electrical components that detect the position of a valve—that is, whether it is open or closed—and communicate that position via a visual display and/or digital signals to the facility's workers and control room. Switchboxes are ancillary components that are typically bundled together with a valve, an actuator (a device that physically opens and closes a valve), and other control products into an “automated” isolation valve, which can open and close automatically without manual intervention. Because switchboxes perform a unique and essential role in the efficient and safe operation of industrial plants and facilities, there currently are no practical alternatives to switchboxes.

    The United States is the relevant geographic market in which to assess the competitive effects of the Acquisition. The United States operates distinctly compared to international markets. Unlike international markets, the domestic market relies heavily on distributors, so competition takes place at both the distributor and customer level. Moreover, customers in the United States have distinct brand preferences for leading switchbox brands. Because switchboxes are frequently used under hazardous conditions in which safety is critical, brand reputation and product reliability are very important to customers. As a result, U.S. customers are unlikely to turn to brands that are not well established in the United States in response to a small but significant non-transitory increase in price.

    Pentair's “Westlock” and Emerson's “TopWorx” switchbox businesses are the two largest suppliers of switchboxes in the United States, with a combined market share of approximately 60%. Other than Westlock and TopWorx, there are few suppliers with appreciable market shares. Each of these suppliers has substantially smaller market shares than either Westlock or TopWorx. In addition, there is a fringe of small manufacturers with very small market shares. The switchboxes produced by these smaller suppliers are not widely accepted by customers in the United States. The Acquisition would substantially increase concentration levels in the U.S. switchbox market and would result in a highly concentrated market. Under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, the increase in concentration would presumptively create or enhance market power.

    IV. Effects of the Acquisition

    Absent a divestiture, the proposed Acquisition would likely harm competition in the U.S. switchbox market. Emerson and Pentair are each other's closest competitors in this market, and customers benefit from that competition through lower prices and increased product innovation. TopWorx and Westlock are the most widely used and highly regarded brands of switchboxes in the United States and, for many customers, are the only acceptable brands of switchboxes. By eliminating competition between Emerson and Pentair, the Acquisition likely would produce unilateral effects in the form of higher prices and reduced innovation.

    V. Entry

    Entry into the U.S. market for switchboxes would not be timely, likely, or sufficient in to deter or counteract the anticompetitive effects of the Acquisition. The competitive strength of TopWorx and Westlock largely reflects their brand reputation for reliability and durability, which could not be quickly replicated by a new entrant. In addition, customers will typically only purchase switchboxes from approved suppliers and are reluctant to consider unproven manufacturers. This is because customers place a premium on safety, and product failure could cause costly and potentially dangerous disruption to critical applications. Any new entrant would need to not only undertake a lengthy and costly process of new product development, but would also need to undergo rigorous vetting, testing, and approval to become viable alternatives for many customers. Given the difficulty in overcoming these obstacles, it is unlikely that a new entrant or existing lower-tier competitor could effectively restore the competition lost through this Acquisition.

    VI. The Proposed Consent Agreement

    The proposed Consent Agreement remedies the competitive concerns raised by the Acquisition by requiring Emerson to divest Pentair's Westlock subsidiary to Crane, a publicly traded manufacturer of highly engineered industrial products, including industrial valves. The proposed divestiture includes everything needed for Crane to compete effectively in the U.S. market for switchboxes.

    Crane, headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, is a 162-year-old company with a long history as a significant competitor in the U.S. industrial valves market, providing it with the industry experience and expertise necessary to replace the competition that would be lost due to the Acquisition. Crane's portfolio of valves complements the switchbox and other valve control products that Westlock manufactures, but Crane does not sell any products that compete with Westlock. Crane has a substantial U.S. infrastructure and customer base, including many of the same customers as Westlock, and pre-existing relationships with many of Westlock's distributors. Crane is thus well positioned to acquire and integrate Westlock and maintain the benefits of competition in this market.

    Under the terms of the Order, Emerson must divest all of Westlock's businesses and assets to Crane, including Westlock's manufacturing facility located in Saddle Brook, New Jersey, and all of the confidential information and intellectual property related to Westlock's product portfolio. Emerson must also allow Crane to have access to and hire any Westlock employees who were engaged in the research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or sales of Westlock's products. In order to ensure that the divestiture will succeed, the Order requires the Respondents to enter into a one-year transitional services agreement with Crane for certain functions that Pentair performed for Westlock (such as accounts receivable, tax, legal, payroll, benefits, and other related functions). In order to preserve competition with Emerson, the Order requires Emerson to institute procedures that protect sensitive non-public information regarding Westlock's business from the Emerson business people in competing lines of business. It also restricts Emerson from instituting patent infringement suits against Crane for the Westlock switchbox product lines that are currently being marketed or in development.

    The Respondents must complete the divestiture no later than ten days after the consummation of the Acquisition. If the Commission determines that Crane is not an acceptable acquirer, the Order requires the Respondents to unwind the sale and accomplish a divestiture of Westlock to another Commission-approved acquirer within 180 days of the date the Order becomes final. Further, the Order allows the Commission to appoint a monitor to ensure that the Respondents expeditiously comply with their obligations under the Order and a Divestiture Trustee to accomplish the divestiture should the Respondents fail to comply with their divestiture obligations.

    VII. Opportunity for Public Comment

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the Consent Agreement to aid the Commission in determining whether it should make the Consent Agreement final. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed Consent Agreement and does not modify its terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08965 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project “The Re-engineered Visit for Primary Care (AHRQ REV).” This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2017 and allowed 60 days for public comment. AHRQ received one comment from the public. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: AHRQ's OMB Desk Officer by fax at (202) 395-6974 (attention: AHRQ's desk officer) or by email at [email protected] (attention: AHRQ's desk officer).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project The Re-Engineered Visit for Primary Care (AHRQ REV)

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection. This project, The Re-engineered Visit for Primary Care (AHRQ REV), directly addresses the agency's goal to conduct research to enhance the quality of health care and reduce avoidable readmissions, which are a major indicator of poor quality and patient safety.

    Research from AHRQ's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) indicates that in 2011 there were approximately 3.3 million adult hospital readmissions in the United States. Adults covered by Medicare have the highest readmission rate (17.2 per 100 admissions), followed by adults covered by Medicaid (14.6 per 100 admissions) and privately insured adults (8.7 per 100 admissions). High rates of readmissions are a major patient safety problem and are associated with a range of adverse events, such as prescribing errors and misdiagnoses of conditions in the hospital and ambulatory care settings. Collectively these readmissions are associated with $41.3 billion in annual hospital costs, many of which potentially could be avoided.

    In recent years, payer and provider efforts to reduce readmissions have proliferated. Many of these national programs have been informed or guided by evidence-based research, toolkits and guides, such as AHRQ's RED (Re-Engineered Discharge), STAAR (STate Action on Avoidable Readmission), AHRQ's Project BOOST (Better Outcomes by Optimizing Safe Transitions), the Hospital Guide to Reducing Medicaid Readmissions, and Eric Coleman's Care Transitions Intervention. These efforts have largely focused on enhancing practices occurring within the hospital setting, including the discharge process transitions among providers and between settings of care. While many of these efforts have recognized the critical role of primary care in managing care transitions, they have not had an explicit focus on enhancing primary care with the aim of reducing avoidable readmissions.

    Evidence-based guidance to reduce readmissions and improve patient safety are comparatively lacking for the primary care setting. This gap in the literature is becoming more pronounced as primary care is increasingly serving as the key integrator across the health system as part of payment and delivery system reforms. This research project aims to address the important and unfulfilled need to improve patient safety and reduce avoidable readmissions within the primary care context.

    AHRQ's goals in supporting this 30-month project are to build on the knowledge base from the inpatient settings, add to the expanding evidence base on preventing readmissions by focusing on the primary care setting, and provide insight on the components and themes that should be part of a re-engineered visit in primary care. This work will ultimately inform an effective intervention that can be tested in a diverse set of primary care clinics.

    To meet AHRQ's goals and objectives, the agency awarded a task order to John Snow, Inc. (JSI) to conduct qualitative research using quality improvement to investigate the primary care-based transitional care workflow from the primary care staff, patient, and community agency perspective.

    This research has the following goals:

    1. Analyze current processes in the primary care visit associated with hospital discharge; and

    2. Identify components of the re-engineered visit.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and vale of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    To analyze current processes in the primary care visit associated with hospital discharge, the data collection is separated into seven smaller data collection activities to minimize research participant burden while still allowing for the collection of necessary data. Each of these tasks will be conducted at nine primary care sites:

    1. Primary care site organizational characteristics survey: The purpose of this background information on the primary care site's organizational characteristics is to offer context for the work flow mapping. It will help make the work flow mapping process more efficient and reduce burden by only requesting information that is already known by each site contact. One person per primary care site will be engaged for this task.

    2. Primary care site patient characteristics survey: The purpose of this background information on the primary care site's patients is to offer context for the work flow mapping. It will help make the work flow mapping process more efficient and reduce burden by only requesting information that is already known in the primary care practices' billing or clinical information systems. One person per primary care site will be engaged for this task.

    3. Work flow mapping preliminary interviews: The purpose of this flow mapping “pre-work” is to engage individual primary care staff members to think about the current work flow map in order to set a foundation for the actual work flow mapping process. It is anticipated that eight individuals per primary care site will participate, for a total of 72 participants.

    4. Work flow mapping: This collection will take place in a group meeting that brings together staff from various role types to collaborate in identifying their workflow processes involved in planning for and executing post-hospital follow up services for their patients. Based on feasibility, these may be smaller or larger group meetings, but the total burden on each role type participant is the same. The end goal of this meeting is to have enough information to develop an initial process flow map on paper. It is anticipated that 10 individuals per primary care site will participate, for a total of 90 participants.

    5. Work flow mapping follow-up interviews: Once the initial process flow map is on paper, each role type will be asked to review to correct, add, or confirm detail to the document. Once the flow map has been edited and ratified by the primary care site staff, each role type will be asked specific questions regarding the flaws identified in the process flow for the failure mode effects analysis. It is anticipated that eight individuals per primary care site will participate, for a total of 72 participants.

    6. Patient interviews: As a complement to the work flow mapping, there will also be a process flow map developed from the patient's perspective. The purpose of the patient interviews is to capture patient perspectives on potential breakdowns in making the transition from the hospital to care in the primary care settings and to get, in their own words, information about the initial hospitalization and barriers to accessing follow-up care. One of the widely acknowledged limitations of the existing evidence based toolkits is that they are not designed with input from patients.

    This has occurred despite the fact that clinical experience suggests that providers often fail to identify patient needs and concerns. Research has shown that there are cultural, social, and behavioral factors that may contribute to readmissions and assessing the patient's perspective can help to better understand the barriers to receiving appropriate follow-up care.

    Patient and family interviews are increasingly common practices in efforts to improve care transitions and reduce readmissions, endorsed by CMS, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Kaiser Permanente, and others. This patient interview will collect unique information on the barriers to effective care transitions in the post-discharge period care, information which cannot be collected in other ways. It is anticipated that ten post-discharge patients per primary care site will be interviewed for a total of 90 patients.

    7. Community agency interviews: As a complement to the work flow mapping, the process flow map developed will reflect the perspective of community agencies affiliated with the primary care sites to assist patients. It is anticipated that five community agency representatives per primary care site will be interviewed.

    The purpose of this data collection is to understand the key components that should be included in the re-engineered visit in primary care. The project team will examine the diverse settings, staff, and transitional care activities across a variety of primary care practices to identify key transitional care processes that impact patient outcomes, the challenges to implementing those processes, and ways to improve those processes.

    The project team will distill the themes and principles that should be a part of the re-engineered visit and develop an outline and summary of its components, with a comparison/contrast of the components across sites and discussion of the generalizability of these components to different settings.

    The results of this research will add to the expanding evidence base on preventing readmissions by focusing on the primary care setting, and provide insight on the components and themes that should be part of a re-engineered visit. This information will ultimately inform an effective intervention that can be tested in a diverse set of primary care clinics.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated burden hours to the respondents for providing all of the data needed to meet the project's objectives. The hours estimated per responses are based on the pilot project results.

    For the primary care site organizational characteristics survey and patient characteristics survey, one person per each of the nine primary care sites will participate. Both surveys are anticipated to take 1.5 hours to complete.

    For the work flow mapping preliminary interviews, we estimate that eight primary care staff per primary care site will participate, with each individual spending 0.5 hours in these interviews.

    For the work flow mapping group interview, we estimate that 10 primary care staff per primary care site will participate, with each individual spending 1.5 hours in these interviews. Finally, we estimate that eight primary care staff per primary care site will participate in the work flow mapping follow-up interviews, with each individual spending 0.5 hours in this data collection activity.

    There will be 10 patients interviewed in association with each primary care site. These patient interviews are expected to take 0.5 hours per individual research participant.

    Lastly, there will be five community agency staff members interviewed in association with each primary care site. These interviews are expected to take 1 hour per individual research participant.

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated cost burden for the respondents' time to participate in the project. The total annualized cost burden is estimated at $11,500.30.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Primary care site organizational characteristics survey 9 1 1.5 13.5 Primary care site patient characteristics survey 9 1 1.5 13.5 Workflow mapping preliminary interview 72 1 0.5 36 Workflow mapping group interview 90 1 1.5 135 Workflow mapping follow-up interview 72 1 0.5 36 Patient interview 90 1 0.5 45 Community agency interview 45 1 1 45 Total 387 n/a n/a 2,628 hours
    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage
  • rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Primary care site organizational characteristics survey 9 13.5 a $ 40.41 $ 545.54 Primary care site patient characteristics survey 9 13.5 a 40.41 545.54 Workflow mapping preliminary interview 72 36 a 40.41 1,454.76 Workflow mapping group interview 90 135 a 40.41 5,455.35 Workflow mapping follow-up interview 72 36 a 40.41 1,454.76 Patient interview 90 45 b 23.23 1,045.35 Community agency interview 45 45 c 22.20 999.00 Total 387 n/a n/a 11,500.30 * For hourly average wage rates, mean hourly wages from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2015 national occupational employment wage estimates were used. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000. a Participants will include a mix of providers and front desk staff; therefore a blended rate for these tasks are used including Nurse ($33.55), Medical Assistant ($15.011), Front Desk Staff ($13.382), Program Director ($32.56), Pharmacist ($56.96), Physician ($91.60), Behavioral health provider ($22.03). b Based upon the mean wages for consumers (all occupations). c Based upon the mean wages for Social Workers.
    Request for Comments

    1http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes319092.htm.

    2http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes434171.htm.

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Acting Director.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08997 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) GH16-006, Conducting Public Health Research in Kenya; GH17-004, Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Egypt; GH17-005, Conducting Public Health Research in China.

    Time and Date: 9:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., EDT, May 24, 2017 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Conducting Public Health Research in Kenya”, GH16-006; “Conducting Public Health Research Activities in Egypt”, GH17-004; and “Conducting Public Health Research in China”, GH17-005.

    Contact Person for More Information: Hylan Shoob, Scientific Review Officer, Center for Global Health (CGH) Science Office, CGH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-69, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone: (404) 639-4796.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09013 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement, PS17-005, Strengthening HIV/AIDS Research in Kenya.

    Time and Date: 10:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, May 24, 2017 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Strengthening HIV/AIDS Research in Kenya”, PS17-005.

    Contact Person for More Information: Gregory Anderson, M.S., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E60, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone: (404) 718-8833.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09014 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special Emphasis Panel (SEP): Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces a meeting for the initial review of applications in response to Funding Opportunity Announcement, RFA-TS17-001, Identify and Characterize Potential Environmental Risk Factors for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).

    Time and Date: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, May 31, 2017 (Closed).

    Place: Teleconference.

    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Identify and Characterize Potential Environmental Risk Factors for ALS”, RFA-TS-17-001.

    Contact Person for More Information: Oscar Tarrago, M.D., M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, CDC, 4770 Buford Highway NE., Mailstop F63, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724, Telephone: (770) 488-3492.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09015 Filed 5-3-17; 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: Center for States Evaluation Ancillary Data Collection.

    OMB No.: New Collection.

    Description: The Evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative, Center for States is sponsored by the Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this evaluation is to respond to a set of cross-cutting evaluation questions posed by the Children's Bureau. This new information collection is an ancillary part of a larger data collection effort being conducted for the evaluation of the Child Welfare Capacity Building Collaborative. Two groups of instruments for the larger evaluation have already been submitted, and requests for clearance have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (see Federal Register Volume 80, No. 211, November 2, 2015; Federal Register Volume 81, No. 41, March 2, 2016; Federal Register Volume 81, No. 111, June 9, 2016; Federal Register Volume 81, No. 186, September 26, 2016), with the first group of instruments approved on August 31, 2016. This notice details a group of instruments that are specific only to the Center for States. The instruments focus on (1) evaluating an innovative approach to engaging professionals in networking and professional development through virtual conferences, (2) understanding fidelity to and effectiveness of the Center for States' Capacity Building Model, and (3) capturing consistent information during the updated annual assessment process focused on related contextual issues impacting potential service delivery such as implementation of new legislation.

    Respondents: Respondents of these data collection instruments will include child welfare agency staff and stakeholders who directly receive services.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total annual burden hours
    Child Welfare Virtual Conference Session Surveys 800 6 .08 384 Child Welfare Virtual Conference Focus Group Guide 30 1 1 30 Child Welfare Virtual Conference Interview Guide 20 1 .5 10 Child Welfare Virtual Conference Registration Form 1500 1 .03 45 Child Welfare Virtual Conference Exit Survey 500 1 .16 80 Tailored Services Practice Model Survey 200 1 .12 24 Assessment Observation—Group Debrief 114 1 .25 28.5 Service Delivery and Tracking and Adjustment Observation—Group Debrief 160 1 .25 40 Assessment and Service Delivery State Lead Interviews—Supplemental Questions 50 1 .5 25 Annual Assessment Update (8 systematic questions) 57 1 .08 4.56

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 671.06.

    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. 2017-08961 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Proposed Extension With Modifications of a Currently Approved Collection; National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants; Correction AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living published a proposed collection of information document in the Federal Register on March 13, 2017 (82 FR 13457 and 13458). The Web page link where the proposed information collection entitled the National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants 2017 Draft could be found is no longer functional as of Thursday May 4, 2017, due to an update of the ACL.gov Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Heather Menne at 202-795-7733 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    For the remainder of the public comment period through May 12, 2017, the proposed information collection entitled the National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants 2017 Draft can be found at: https://acl.gov/NewsRoom/Index.aspx.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Daniel P. Berger, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09022 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection (ICR-REV); Centers for Independent Living Annual Performance Report (CILPPR); Correction AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living published a proposed collection of information document in the Federal Register on February 23, 2017. (82 FR 11471 and 11472) The Web page link where the proposed revision to an existing data collection related to the Centers for Independent Living Program Performance Report (CIL PPR) could be found is no longer functional as of Thursday May 4, 2017, due to an update of the ACL.gov Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Corinna Styles at 202-795-7446.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    For the remainder of the public comment period through May 5, 2017, the proposed revision to the Centers for Independent Living Program Performance Report (CIL PPR) can be found at: https://acl.gov/NewsRoom/Index.aspx.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Daniel P. Berger, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09021 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Administration for Community Living; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request; Protection and Advocacy for Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report; Correction AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living published a proposed collection of information document in the Federal Register on April 26, 2017. (82 FR 19245 and 19246) The Web page link where the proposed Protection and or Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report (PPR) form could be found is no longer functional as of Thursday May 4, 2017, due to an update of the ACL.gov Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Wilma Roberts at 202-795-7449 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Correction

    For the remainder of the public comment period through May 26, 2017, the proposed Protection and or Traumatic Brain Injury (PATBI) Program Performance Report (PPR) form can be found at: https://acl.gov/NewsRoom/Index.aspx.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Daniel P. Berger, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09020 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Template for ACL Discretionary Grant Programs; Correction AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living published a proposed collection of information document in the Federal Register on April 26, 2017. (82 FR 19246 and 19247) The Web page link where the proposed Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Template for ACL Discretionary Grant Programs could be found is no longer functional as of Thursday May 4, 2017, due to an update of the ACL.gov Web site.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Snyderman at 202-795-7439 or [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Correction

    For the remainder of the public comment period through May 26, 2017, the proposed Funding Opportunity Announcement and Grant Application Template for ACL Discretionary Grant Programs can be found at: https://acl.gov/NewsRoom/Index.aspx.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Daniel P. Berger, Acting Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09023 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Determination of Number of Entities and Recruitment of Entities for Assignment of Corps Personnel Obligated Under the National Health Service Corps Scholarship Program AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HRSA has determined that a minimum Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) score of 17 for assignment of all service-ready National Health Service Corps (NHSC) scholars is necessary for HRSA to meet its statutory obligation to identify a number of entities eligible for NHSC scholar placement that is at least equal to, but not greater than, twice the number of NHSC scholars available to serve in the 2017-2018 placement cycle. HRSA is also posting the proposed listing of entities and associated HPSA scores that will receive priority for assignment of NHSC Scholarship recipients available for service during the period October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018, on the Health Workforce Connector Web site (formerly known as the NHSC Jobs Center) at https://connector.hrsa.gov/. The Health Workforce Connector includes sites that are approved for performance of service by NHSC scholars; however, entities on this list may or may not have current job vacancies.

    DATES:

    Entities interested in providing additional data and information in support of their inclusion on the list of entities that will receive priority in assignment of NHSC scholars, or in support of a higher priority determination, must do so in writing no later than June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information in support of inclusion on the list of entities or a higher priority determination should be submitted to: Beth Dillon, Director, Division of Regional Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, 1961 Stout Street, Denver, CO 80294. This information will be considered in preparing the final list of entities that are receiving priority for the assignment of NHSC Scholarship-obligated Corps personnel.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the statutory requirement under 42 U.S.C. 254f-1(d), HRSA has determined that a minimum HPSA score of 17 for assignment of all service-ready NHSC scholars enables identification of a number of entities eligible for NHSC scholar placement that is at least equal to, but not greater than, twice the number of NHSC scholars available to serve in the 2017-2018 placement cycle. More specifically, for the program year October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018, HPSAs of greatest shortage for determination of priority for assignment of NHSC Scholarship-obligated Corps personnel is defined as follows: (1) Primary medical care HPSAs with scores of 17 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are primary care physicians, family nurse practitioners, physician assistants, or certified nurse midwives; (2) mental health HPSAs with scores of 17 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are psychiatrists or mental health nurse practitioners; and (3) dental HPSAs with scores of 17 and above are authorized for the assignment of NHSC scholars who are dentists.

    The proposed listing of entities and associated HPSA scores that will receive priority for assignment of NHSC Scholarship recipients available for service during the period October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018, is posted on the Health Workforce Connector Web site (formerly known as the NHSC Jobs Center) at https://connector.hrsa.gov/. Entities interested in providing additional data and information in support of their inclusion on this list of entities or in support of a higher priority determination must do so in writing by the date above.

    Please note that HRSA may update the list of HPSAs and entities eligible to receive priority for the placement of NHSC scholars and may remove or add entities to the Health Workforce Connector during the annual Site Application competition. Accordingly, entities that no longer meet eligibility criteria, including those sites whose 3-year approval as an NHSC service site has lapsed or whose HPSA designation has been withdrawn or proposed for withdrawal, will be removed from the priority listing.

    Sites wishing to request an additional scholar must complete an Additional Scholar Request form available at http://nhsc.hrsa.gov/downloads/additionalrequestform.pdf. NHSC-approved sites that do not meet the authorized threshold HPSA score of 17 may post job openings on the Health Workforce Connector; however, scholars seeking placement between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018, will be advised that they can only apply for open positions at sites that meet the threshold placement HPSA score of 17. While not eligible for scholar placements in the 2017-2018 cycle, vacancies in HPSAs scoring less than 17 will be used by the NHSC in evaluating the HPSA threshold score for the next annual scholarship placement cycle.

    The program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs (as implemented through 45 CFR part 100).

    Dated: April 27, 2017. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09024 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: 0990-New-60D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, announces plans to submit a new Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, OS seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate below or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] and [email protected] or by calling (202) 795-7714.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the document identifier 0990-New-60D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Evaluation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Demonstration.

    Abstract: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for data collection activities to support the evaluation of the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) demonstration program.

    In April 2014, Section 223 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act (PAMA) mandated the CCBHC demonstration to address some of the challenges of access, coordination, financing, and quality facing community mental health centers (CMHCs) across the country. The CCBHC demonstration is intended to improve the availability, quality, and outcomes of CMHC ambulatory care by establishing a standard definition and criteria for CCBHCs, and developing a new payment system that accounts for the total cost of providing comprehensive services to all individuals who seek care. The demonstration also aims to more fully integrate primary and behavioral health care services; ensure more consistent use of evidence-based practices; and, through enhanced standardized reporting requirements, offer an opportunity to assess the quality of care provided by CCBHCs across the country.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: Section 223 of PAMA requires the Secretary of HHS to provide annual reports to Congress that include an assessment of access to community-based mental health services under Medicaid, the quality and scope of CCBHC services, and the impact of the demonstration on federal and state costs of a full range of mental health services. In addition, PAMA requires the Secretary to provide recommendations regarding continuation, expansion, modifications, or termination of the demonstration no later than December 31, 2021. The data collected under this submission will help ASPE address research questions for the evaluation, and inform the required reports to Congress.

    Likely Respondents: Respondents include the following: Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic demonstration grantees; State Medicaid Officials; State Mental Health Officials; and State Consumer/Family Representatives.

    The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Respondents/activity Number of sites Number of
  • respondents per site
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour
  • burden
  • CCBHC site leadership staff 8 1 1 8 2 16 CCBHC frontline providers 8 4 1 24 1 24 CCBHC care managers 8 2 1 16 1 16 CCBHC administrative/finance staff 8 2 1 16 1 16 State Medicaid official 8 2 3 48 1 48 State mental health official 8 2 3 48 1 48 State consumer/family representative 8 2 1 16 1 16 CCBHC site leadership staff 76 1 2 152 4 608 Total 132 16 13 178 16 792

    OS specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    Terry S. Clark, Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08973 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary [Document Identifier: OS-0990-New-30D] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The ICR is for a new collection. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public on this ICR during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on the ICR must be received on or before June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information Collection Clearance staff, [email protected] or (202) 795-7714.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the Information Collection Request Title and document identifier 0999-New-30D for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Pregnancy Assistance Fund (PAF) Performance Measures Collection, FY2017-FY2019 cohort.

    OMB No.: 0990—New.

    Abstract: The Office of Adolescent Health (OAH), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting approval by OMB of a new information collection request. In FY2017, OAH expects to award a new, 3-year cohort of Pregnancy Assistance Fund (PAF) grants. Performance measure data collection is a requirement of PAF grants and is included in the funding announcement.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The data collection will provide OAH with performance data to inform planning and resource allocation decisions; identify technical assistance needs for grantees; facilitate grantees' continuous quality improvement in program implementation; and provide HHS, Congress, OMB, and the general public with information about the individuals who participate in PAF-funded activities and the services they receive.

    Likely Respondents: 20 PAF grantees (States and Tribes).

    The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • Training 20 1 15/60 5 Partnerships and Sustainability 20 1 3 60 Dissemination 20 1 30/60 10 Reach and Demographics 20 1 645/60 215 Core Services 20 1 750/60 250 Education 20 1 7 140 Birth Outcomes 20 1 270/60 90 Self-Sufficiency Outcomes 20 1 90/60 30 Total 20 1 40 800
    Terry S. Clark, Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08972 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4168-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

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

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The 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 Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Peer Review Meeting.

    Date: June 6, 2017.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Vasundhara Varthakavi, DVM, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, Room 3E70, National Institutes of Health, NIAID, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Bethesda, MD 20892-9823, (240) 669-5020, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 28, 2017. Natasha Copeland, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08989 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request

    In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are 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; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Proposed Project: National Mental Health Study Field Test—NEW

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) plans to conduct a methodological field test for a potential national mental health study, provisionally named the National Mental Health Study (NMHS). The NMHS will use mental disorder assessments similar to studies last conducted over a decade ago in the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication among adults in 2001-2003 and the National Comorbidity Survey-Adolescent supplement among adolescents in 2001-2002. SAMHSA is collaborating with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to implement this field test.

    The purpose of the NMHS Field Test is to test the procedures for a potential NMHS. The field test consists of three general components. The first component is sample selection using a household screener. The household screener will be used to determine eligibility of individuals and to make selections of individuals to recruit for participation in the second component. The second component consists of an in-person survey of the selected adult and adolescent respondents. The NMHS procedures vary somewhat between adults (aged 18 or older) and adolescents (aged 13 to 17). For all respondents, the in-person assessment (using either the adult or adolescent instrument) will be conducted primarily using audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (ACASI), with an emphasis on respondents completing the interview in a single session. In addition to the adolescent in-person assessment, parents/legal guardians of adolescent respondents will receive an additional web or phone interviews (the parent instrument). The final component consists of a telephone clinical reappraisal of a selected subgroup of adult and adolescent respondents, with an additional parent/guardian reporting for adolescents.

    The NMHS field test will include 1,200 English speaking respondents—900 adults and 300 adolescents in the United States excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Approximately 210 parents/legal guardians of adolescent respondents will complete an additional parent interview. A subsample of approximately 150 adult and adolescent respondents and 50 parent respondents will complete a telephone-based clinical reappraisal follow-up interview. In addition, a subsample of completed screening and interview cases will be re-contacted for a brief telephone interview to verify that interviewers followed proper protocols when collecting data. The sample size supports testing of field procedures, sampling algorithms, and data processing steps. The total annual burden estimate is shown in the table below.

    Annualized Estimated Burden for the National Mental Health Study Field Test Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total
  • burden
  • hours
  • Household Screening 2,331 1 2,331 0.083 193 Interview (including interviews with Adults and Adolescents) 1,200 1 1,200 1.083 1,300 Parent Interview 210 1 210 0.500 105 Clinical Interview 150 1 150 1.000 150 Clinical Parent Interview 50 1 50 0.500 25 Screening Verification 142 1 142 0.067 10 Interview Verification 180 1 180 0.067 12 Total 4,263 4,263 1,795

    Send comments to Summer King, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15E57-B, Rockville, Maryland 20857, OR email a copy to [email protected] Written comments should be received by July 3, 2017.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08993 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0004] Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments; extension 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 July 3, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0004 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to 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). 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: Application for Exportation of Articles under Special Bond.

    OMB Number: 1651-0004.

    Form Number: CBP Form 3495.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or to the information being collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: CBP Form 3495, Application for Exportation of Articles Under Special Bond, is an application for exportation of articles entered under temporary bond pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1202, Chapter 98, subchapter XIII, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, and 19 CFR 10.38. CBP Form 3495 is used by importers to notify CBP that the importer intends to export goods that were subject to a duty exemption based on a temporary stay in this country. It also serves as a permit to export in order to satisfy the importer's obligation to export the same goods and thereby get a duty exemption. This form is accessible at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=3495&=Apply.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 30.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 15,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 8 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09031 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0030] Agency Information Collection Activities: Declaration of Unaccompanied Articles AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments; extension 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 July 3, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0030 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email. Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to 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). 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: Declaration of Unaccompanied Articles.

    OMB Number: 1651-0030.

    Form Number: CBP Form 255.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or the information being collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Individuals.

    Abstract: CBP Form 255, Declaration of Unaccompanied Articles, is completed by travelers arriving in the United States with a parcel or container which is to be sent from an insular possession at a later date. It is the only means whereby the CBP officer, when the person arrives, can apply the exemptions or five percent flat rate of duty to all of the traveler's purchases.

    A person purchasing articles in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands of the United States receives a sales slip, invoice, or other evidence of purchase which is presented to the CBP officer along with CBP Form 255, which is prepared in triplicate. The CBP officer verifies the information, indicates on the form whether the article or articles were free of duty, or dutiable at the flat rate. Two copies of the form are returned to the traveler, who sends one form to the vendor. Upon receipt of the form the vendor places it in an envelope, affixed to the outside of the package, and clearly marks the package “Unaccompanied Tourist Shipment,” and sends the package to the traveler, generally via mail, although it could be sent by other means. If sent through the mail, the package would be examined by CBP and forwarded to the Postal Service for delivery. Any duties due would be collected by the mail carrier. If the shipment arrives other than through the mail, the traveler would be notified by the carrier when the article arrives. Entry would be made by the carrier or the traveler at the customhouse. Any duties due would be collected at that time.

    CBP Form 255 is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1202 (Chapter 98, Subchapters IV and XVI) and provided for by 19 CFR 145.12, 145.43, 148.110, 148.113, 148.114, 148.115 and 148.116. A sample of this form may be viewed at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=255&=Apply.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,500.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 15,000.

    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,250.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09034 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0073] Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Detention AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice and request for comments; extension 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 July 3, 2017) to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice must include the OMB Control Number 1651-0073 in the subject line and the agency name. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Email: Submit comments to: [email protected]

    (2) Mail: Submit written comments to 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to 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.). 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: Notice of Detention.

    OMB Number: 1651-0073.

    Form Number: None.

    Current Actions: CBP proposes to extend the expiration date of this information collection with no change to the burden hours or the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) may detain merchandise when it has reasonable suspicion that the subject merchandise may be inadmissible but requires more information to make a positive determination. If CBP decides to detain merchandise, a Notice of Detention is sent to the importer or to the importer's broker/agent no later than 5 business days from the date of examination stating that merchandise has been detained, the reason for the detention, and the anticipated length of the detention. The recipient of this notice may respond by providing information to CBP in order to facilitate the determination for admissibility, or may ask for an extension of time to bring the merchandise into compliance. The information provided assists CBP in making a determination whether to seize, deny entry of, or release detained goods into the commerce. Notice of Detention is authorized by 19 U.S.C. 1499 and provided for in 19 CFR 151.16, 133.21, 133.25, and 133.43.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,350.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses: 1,350.

    Estimated Time per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2,700.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09032 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection [1651-0050] Agency Information Collection Activities: Importation Bond Structure AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice and request for comments; Extension 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.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted (no later than June 5, 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 9751) on February 8, 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: Importation Bond Structure.

    OMB Number: 1651-0050.

    Form Number: CBP Forms 301 and 5297.

    Current Actions: This submission is being made to extend the expiration date with no change to the burden hours or to the information collected.

    Type of Review: Extension (without change).

    Affected Public: Businesses.

    Abstract: Bonds are used to ensure that duties, taxes, charges, penalties, and reimbursable expenses owed to the Government are paid; to facilitate the movement of cargo and conveyances through CBP processing; and to provide legal recourse for the Government for noncompliance with laws and regulations. Each person who is required by law or regulation to post a bond in order to secure a Customs transaction must submit the bond on CBP Form 301 which is available at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/publications/forms?title=301&=Apply.

    Surety bonds are usually executed by an agent of the surety. The surety company grants authority to the agent via a Corporate Surety Power of Attorney, CBP Form 5297. This power is vested with CBP so that when a bond is filed, the validity of the authority of the agent executing the bond and the name of the surety can be verified to the surety's grant. CBP Form 5297 is available at: https://www.cbp.gov/document/forms/form-5297-corporate-surety-power-attorney. Bonds are required pursuant to 19 U.S.C.1608, and 1623; 22 U.S.C. 463; 19 CFR part 113.

    Form 301, Customs Bond

    Estimated Number of Annual Respondents: 800,000.

    Total Number of Estimated Annual Responses: 800,000.

    Estimated time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 200,000.

    Form 5297, Corporate Surety Power of Attorney

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 500.

    Total Number of Estimated Annual Responses: 500.

    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 125.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Seth Renkema, Branch Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09033 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022] Technical Mapping Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on Tuesday, May 23, 2017. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The TMAC will meet via conference call on Tuesday, May 23, 2017 from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    For information on how to access the conference call, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible. Members of the public who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to [email protected] (attention Mark Crowell) by 11:00 a.m. EDT on Friday, May 19, 2017.

    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. The Agenda and other associated material will be available for review at www.fema.gov/TMAC by Friday, May 19, 2017. Written comments to be considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be received by Monday, May 22, 2017, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Address the email TO: [email protected] and CC: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the email.

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Federal Emergency Management Agency” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

    A public comment period will be held on Tuesday, May 23, 2017, from 1:30—1:50 p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Friday, May 19, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Crowell, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 500 C St SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-3432, and email [email protected] The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an Annual Report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

    Agenda: On Tuesday, May 23, 2017, the TMAC will review and discuss the outlines and draft content for each of the three TMAC 2017 Annual Report topics: (1) Floodplain Management and Mitigation, (2) Residual Risk, and (3) Future Conditions. A brief public comment period will take place during the meeting. A more detailed agenda will be posted by Tuesday, May 16, 2017, at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: April 26, 2017. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08952 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2017-0001] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of new Privacy Act system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of Homeland Security proposes to establish a new Department of Homeland Security system of records titled, “Department of Homeland Security/Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records.” FALCON Search and Analysis is a consolidated information management system that enables ICE law enforcement and homeland security personnel to search, analyze, and visualize volumes of existing information in support of ICE's mission to enforce and investigate violations of U.S. criminal, civil, and administrative laws. Additionally, elsewhere in the Federal Register, the Department of Homeland Security is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act because of the law enforcement sensitivity of the data contributed to and produced within the system of records. This newly established system will be included in the Department of Homeland Security's inventory of record systems.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 5, 2017. This new system will be effective June 5, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number DHS-2017-0001 by one of the following methods:

    • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Fax: 202-343-4010.

    Mail: Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general questions, please contact: Amber Smith (202) 732-3300, Privacy Officer, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. For privacy questions, please contact: Jonathan R. Cantor, (202) 343-1717, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Privacy Office, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) proposes to establish a new DHS system of records titled, “DHS/Immigration and Customs Enforcement-016 FALCON Search and Analysis System of Records.”

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is establishing a consolidated information management system to enable its personnel to search, analyze, and visualize volumes of existing information in support of ICE's mission to enforce and investigate violations of U.S. criminal, civil, and administrative laws. The FALCON Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA) System of Records describes the operation of an ICE information technology system of the same name, which is owned by ICE's Office of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). This system contains a repository of data that is ingested on a routine or ad hoc basis from other existing sources, and an index created from that data to be used for research and analysis in support of ICE HSI's law enforcement mission. FALCON-SA incorporates tools that allow the data to be queried, analyzed, and presented in a variety of formats that can help illuminate relationships among the various data elements. The purpose of FALCON-SA is to help ICE HSI personnel conduct research and analysis using advanced analytic tools in support of their law enforcement mission.

    This system of records ingests and aggregates data from a number of interfaces that fall under the FALCON umbrella, including the FALCON-Tip Line, FALCON-Data Analysis & Research for Trade Transparency System (DARTTS), and FALCON-Roadrunner. All data aggregated from these interfaces, and user access is controlled through a combination of data tagging, access control lists, and other technologies. Using a central data store for FALCON data eliminates the need for multiple copies of the data and streamlines the application of many security and privacy controls. Only data accessed via FALCON-SA is covered by the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records Notice (SORN). However, the other interfaces are covered by other ICE SORNs, as specified in the System Location section of the SORN. Separate SORNs are appropriate because the data, purposes, and routine uses differ depending on which FALCON interface is being used.

    FALCON-SA Data

    Information included in FALCON-SA is ingested either on a routine or ad hoc basis. Routine ingests are regular updates to datasets that originate from other Government (typically ICE or DHS) data systems. A list of routine ingests into the FALCON general data storage environment that is accessible via FALCON-SA is available in the FALCON-SA Privacy Impact Assessment at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    Ad hoc ingests are user-driven ingests of particular data that may be relevant to a given user or group's investigative or analytical project in FALCON-SA. The nature of the data in ad hoc ingests varies from data collected from a commercial or public source (e.g., Internet research or from a commercial data service), to public reports of law enforcement violations or suspicious activity (tips), to digital records seized or subpoenaed during an investigation. All ad hoc ingests are tagged by the FALCON-SA user with the appropriate category description, and that tag controls the retention policy for that data. The ad hoc ingest category description list is included in the FALCON-SA Privacy Impact Assessment at www.dhs.gov/privacy.

    FALCON-SA records may include some or all of the following types of personally identifiable information: Identifying and biographic data such as name and date of birth; citizenship and immigration data; border crossing data; customs import-export history; criminal history; contact information; criminal associates; family relationships; photographs and other media; and employment and education information.

    FALCON-SA also contains an index, which is a numerical and alphabetical list of every word or string of numbers/characters found in the FALCON-SA database, with a reference to the electronic location where the corresponding source record is stored. FALCON-SA uses this index to conduct searches, identify relationships and links between records and data, and generate visualizations for analytic purposes. FALCON-SA also contains metadata that is created when the myriad sources of data are ingested. The metadata is used to apply access controls and other system rules (such as retention policies) to the contents of FALCON-SA. The metadata also provides important contextual information about the date the information was added to FALCON-SA and the source system where the data originated.

    The data sets in FALCON-SA include tips submitted to ICE either through an online form on the ICE Web site or by calling the HSI Tip Line. These tips are created electronically using the FALCON-Tip Line interface, or may be manually entered by HSI's Cyber Crimes Center when the tips pertain to child exploitation crimes. Once HSI adjudicates the tips for action, the tips are then accessible to all HSI users via the FALCON-SA interface.

    Uses of FALCON-SA

    ICE HSI agents, criminal research specialists, and intelligence analysts query FALCON-SA for a variety of purposes: To conduct research that supports the production of law enforcement intelligence products; to provide lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up; to assist in the conduct of ICE criminal, civil, and administrative investigations; to assist in the disruption of terrorist or other criminal activity; and to discover previously unknown connections among existing ICE investigations. These queries can be saved in FALCON-SA to eliminate the need to recreate them each time a user logs on.

    Strong access controls and a robust audit function ensure that ICE's use of the system is predicated on homeland security, law enforcement, and law enforcement intelligence activities. This requirement is enforced by a governance group composed of leadership from HSI with oversight by ICE's legal, privacy and civil liberties offices.

    While ICE previously relied on the DHS/ICE-006 ICE Intelligence Records System (IIRS) SORN, last published at 75 FR 9233 (Mar. 1, 2010), to maintain FALCON-SA records, it was determined that a separate system of records notice will provide greater transparency and allow ICE to more accurately describe the records accessible via FALCON-SA. FALCON-Tip Line records were previously covered by the DHS/ICE-007 Alien Criminal Response Information Management (ACRIMe) SORN, but the FALCON-SA SORN will now cover those records instead. This change is due to the fact that Tip Line records have migrated out of the ACRIMe system into the FALCON environment and that once created, the official repository for FALCON-Tip Line records is the FALCON general data storage environment.

    This SORN will cover data that is accessible via FALCON-SA's user interface only, and does not cover data that is accessed via other FALCON interfaces, such as Roadrunner and DARTTS, which are covered by the DHS/ICE-005 Trade Transparency and Analysis Records (TTAR) SORN.

    Additional information about FALCON-SA can be found in the Privacy Impact Assessments published for FALCON-SA and FALCON-Tip Line, available at http://www.dhs.gov/privacy-documents-ice.

    Consistent with DHS's information sharing mission, information stored in the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records may be shared with other DHS Components that have a need to know the information to carry out their national security, law enforcement, immigration, intelligence, or other homeland security functions. In addition, ICE may share information with appropriate federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, foreign, or international government agencies consistent with the routine uses set forth in this system of records notice.

    Additionally, DHS is issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to exempt this system of records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act elsewhere in the Federal Register. This newly established system will be included in DHS's inventory of record systems.

    II. Privacy Act

    The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, and similarly, the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) provides a statutory right to covered persons to make requests for access and amendment to covered records, as defined by the JRA, along with judicial review for denials of such requests. In addition, the JRA prohibits disclosures of covered records, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.

    Below is the description of the DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-SA System of Records. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), DHS has provided a report of this system of records to the Office of Management and Budget and to Congress.

    SYSTEM NAME AND NUMBER:

    DHS/ICE-016 FALCON-Search and Analysis (FALCON-SA).

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    Unclassified; Law Enforcement Sensitive; and For Official Use Only.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    DHS/ICE maintains records in DHS data centers. This SORN applies to all records available to users through the FALCON-SA interface. This SORN also applies to all records created through the FALCON-Tip Line interface.

    SYSTEM MANAGER(S):

    Assistant Director for Information Management Directorate, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    8 U.S.C. 1103, 1105; 8 U.S.C. 1225(d)(3) and (d)(4)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(2)(C); 8 U.S.C. 1357; 8 U.S.C. 1360(b); 18 U.S.C. 2703; 19 U.S.C. 1509; 19 U.S.C. 1589a; 19 U.S.C. 1628; 21 U.S.C. 967; and 50 U.S.C. 2411(a).

    PURPOSE(S) OF THE SYSTEM:

    The purpose of this system of records is to permit ICE law enforcement and homeland security personnel to search, aggregate, analyze, and visualize volumes of existing information in support of ICE's mission to enforce and investigate violations of U.S. criminal and administrative laws. FALCON-SA allows ICE HSI agents, criminal research specialists, and intelligence analysts to conduct research in order to produce law enforcement intelligence, provide lead information for investigative inquiry and follow-up, assist in the conduct of ICE investigations and the disruption of criminal (including terrorist) activity, and discover previously unknown connections among ICE investigations.

    This system of records also supports the operation of the agency's Tip Line to collect, analyze, and act on information volunteered by the public and other sources concerning suspicious and potentially illegal activity.

    This system of records also supports the identification of potential criminal activity, immigration violations, and threats to homeland security. The system is used to uphold and enforce the law, and to ensure public safety.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    (1) Individuals who owned, had custody of, or arranged for the import or export of property that is seized by ICE or U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP);

    (2) Individuals identified in TECS subject records and investigative records created by ICE and CBP, including violators or suspected violators of laws enforced or administered by ICE and CBP; individuals arrested by ICE and CBP for violations of law; witnesses associated with ICE and CBP enforcement actions; persons who own or operate businesses, property, vehicles, or other property that is in a TECS subject record; and individuals applying for a license issued by DHS or for which DHS conducts a background investigation in support of the licensing agency;

    (3) Subjects of administrative actions by ICE, such as individuals who are the subject or proponent of a continued presence parole application under the Immigration and Nationality Act;

    (4) Subjects of ICE threat assessments such as gang members;

    (5) Aliens arrested, detained, and/or removed by ICE, or issued a notice to appear in immigration court, under the Immigration and Nationality Act;

    (6) Aliens who are the subject of an ICE immigration detainer or request for notification;

    (7) ICE personnel or personnel from partner law enforcement agencies who are mentioned in significant incident reports that concern law enforcement (LE) operations, injuries to law enforcement personnel, or other significant incidents reported within ICE;

    (8) Individuals who are associated with an ICE investigation, have provided information to ICE during an investigation, or whose data is part of records or other materials collected, compiled, or seized during an investigation, including victims, witnesses, associates, and sources;

    (9) Individuals alleged to be involved in suspicious or illegal activity, and the individuals reporting such activity to ICE;

    (10) Specially Designated Nationals, as defined by 31 CFR 500.306;

    (11) Individuals identified on other denied parties or screening lists; and

    (12) Government personnel associated with official requests by another agency for ICE assistance, or associated with any of the foregoing categories of individuals.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    (1) Biographic and other identifying information, including names; dates of birth; places of birth; Social Security numbers (SSN); Tax Identification Numbers (TIN); Exporter Identification Numbers (EIN); passport information (number and country of issuance); citizenship; nationality; location and contact information (e.g., home, business, and email addresses and telephone numbers); and other identification numbers (e.g., Alien Registration Number, driver's license number).

    (2) Financial data, including data reported pursuant to the Bank Secrecy Act (e.g., certain transactions over $10,000) and other financial data obtained via official investigations, legal processes, or legal settlements. Financial data includes, but is not limited to, bank account numbers, transaction numbers, and descriptions or value of financial transactions.

    (3) Licensing information related to applications by individuals or businesses to hold or retain a customs broker's license, operate a customs-bonded warehouse, or be a bonded carrier or bonded cartman.

    (4) Various internal operational reports, including reports of significant incidents and operations; reports concerning prospective enforcement activity; requests for assistance from other law enforcement agencies; agency intelligence reports; and reports of third-agency visits to ICE detention facilities.

    (5) Law enforcement records, including TECS subject records and investigative records related to an ICE or CBP law enforcement matter, information obtained from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Specially Designated Nationals List, visa security information, and other trade-based and financial sanction screening lists. Law enforcement data includes, but is not limited to, names; aliases; business names; addresses; dates of birth; places of birth; citizenship; nationality; passport information; SSNs; TINs; driver's license numbers; and vehicle, vessel, and aircraft information.

    (6) Reports of fines, penalties, forfeitures, and seizure incidents.

    (7) Records of call transactions and subscriber information obtained during the course of an ICE criminal investigation.

    (8) Tips concerning illegal or suspicious activity from the public and other law enforcement agencies.

    (9) Continued presence parole application records.

    (10) Open source information—news articles or other data available to the public on the Internet or in public records, including publicly available information from social media.

    (11) Commercially available data—public and proprietary records available for a subscription.

    (12) Cargo and border crossing data—inbound/outbound shipment records and border crossing information from CBP's Automated Targeting System. NOTE: Passenger Name Record (PNR) data may not be uploaded into this system of records.

    (13) Criminal information, including lookouts, warrants, criminal history records, and other civil or criminal investigative information provided by other law enforcement agencies.

    (14) Information from foreign governments or multinational organizations such as INTERPOL or Europol—including criminal history; immigration data; passenger, vehicle, vessel entry/exit data; passport information; vehicle, vessel, and licensing records; shipment records; telephone records; intelligence reports; investigative leads and requests; and wants, warrants, and lookouts.

    (15) Finished intelligence reports from DHS or other agencies.

    (16) Evidentiary information concerning evidence seized or otherwise lawfully obtained during the course of an ICE investigation, including business records, third-agency records, public records (courts, etc.), transcripts of interviews/depositions, or materials seized or obtained via subpoena or other lawful process.

    (17) Trade analysis data, including trade identifier numbers (e.g., for manufacturers importers, exporters, and customs brokers) and bill of lading data (e.g., consignee names and addresses, shipper names and addresses, container numbers, carriers); other financial data required for the detection and analysis of financial irregularities and crimes.

    (18) Tip data concerning child exploitation violations, such as the biographical data of the suspect or the suspect's online identity information (user ID). Internet Service Provider data, domain name, credit card number and Internet Protocol (IP) address, Internet subscriber data (name, subscriber number, billing address, IP address, payment method, and email addresses), a log of subscriber activity, or other information such as motor vehicle data, SSN, and other information collected during the course of vetting the tip from sources such as Government databases, and open source and commercially-available data, as previously described.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Records are obtained from other ICE and DHS record systems as well as records or information from other agencies, DHS partners, and the public. Public records and commercial data may also be added to the system.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside DHS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    A. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or other federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when it is relevant or necessary to the litigation and one of the following is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation:

    1. DHS or any component thereof;

    2. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her official capacity;

    3. Any employee or former employee of DHS in his/her individual capacity when DOJ or DHS has agreed to represent the employee; or

    4. The United States or any agency thereof.

    B. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

    C. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or General Services Administration pursuant to records management inspections being conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    D. To an agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.

    E. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    1. DHS suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised;

    2. DHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise, there is a risk of identity theft or fraud, harm to economic or property interests, harm to an individual, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by DHS or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and

    3. The disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with DHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    F. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for DHS, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to DHS officers and employees.

    G. To an appropriate Federal, State, tribal, local, international, or foreign law enforcement agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, when a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties of the person making the disclosure.

    H. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign or international agencies, if the information is relevant and necessary to a requesting agency's decision concerning the hiring or retention of an individual; the issuance, grant, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance, license, contract, grant, or other benefit; or if the information is relevant and necessary to a DHS decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    I. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, international, or foreign criminal, civil, or regulatory law enforcement authorities when the information is necessary for collaboration, coordination, and de-confliction of investigative matters, prosecutions, and/or other law enforcement actions to avoid duplicative or disruptive efforts and to ensure the safety of law enforcement officers who may be working on related law enforcement matters.

    J. To international, foreign, intergovernmental, and multinational government agencies, authorities, and organizations in accordance with law and formal or informal international arrangements.

    K. To Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, or foreign government agencies or organizations, or international organizations, lawfully engaged in collecting law enforcement intelligence, whether civil or criminal, to enable these entities to carry out their law enforcement responsibilities, including the collection of law enforcement intelligence.

    L. To an organization or individual in either the public or private sector, either foreign or domestic, when there is a reason to believe that the recipient is or could become the target of a particular terrorist activity or conspiracy, to the extent the information is relevant to the protection of life or property.

    M. To third parties during the course of a law enforcement investigation to the extent necessary to obtain information pertinent to the investigation, provided disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making the disclosure.

    N. To other Federal law enforcement agencies, the disclosure of call detail records to coordinate criminal investigations, specifically to assist in the identification of investigations that may be related, as well as the deconfliction of cases.

    O. To the news media and the public, with the approval of the Chief Privacy Officer in consultation with counsel, when there exists a legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the information, when disclosure is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of DHS, or when disclosure is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of DHS's officers, employees, or individuals covered by the system, except to the extent the Chief Privacy Officer determines that release of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF RECORDS:

    DHS/ICE stores records in this system electronically or on paper in secure facilities in a locked drawer behind a locked door. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF RECORDS:

    Records may be retrieved by name or other personal identifier.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:

    The retention period for information contained in FALCON-SA varies depending on the type of data. Routinely ingested DHS-owned data is retained in accordance with the approved record retention schedule of the source system. Data uploaded to FALCON-SA in an ad hoc manner is associated with a case file number, to the extent possible, and retained consistent with the retention of the case file. When there is no case file number, the data is retained for 20 years. FALCON-SA metadata and index data are retained for the same length of time as the record or data element they originate from or describe.

    FALCON-SA is the official repository for tip information at ICE and does not obtain these records from another internal database source. ICE records created via the FALCON-Tip Line application are fed into FALCON-SA's general data storage environment thereafter. Other tip information may be entered into FALCON-SA manually by a specialized unit within ICE when the tips pertain to child exploitation crimes. Tip Line records will be retained for ten (10) years from the date of the tip. Tip records concerning child exploitation crimes will be retained for 75 years.

    ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, AND PHYSICAL SAFEGUARDS:

    DHS/ICE safeguards records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access policies. ICE has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising the information that is being stored. Access to the computer system containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who have a need to know the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security has exempted this system from the notification, access, and amendment procedures of the Privacy Act, and the Judicial Redress Act if applicable, because it is a law enforcement system. However, DHS and ICE will consider individuals' requests to determine whether or not information may be released. Thus, individuals seeking notification of and access to any record contained in this system of records, or seeking to contest its content, may submit a request in writing to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, whose contact information can be found at http://www.dhs.gov/foia under “FOIA Contact Information.” If an individual believes more than one component maintains Privacy Act records concerning him or her, the individual may submit the request to the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528-0655. Even if neither the Privacy Act nor the Judicial Redress Act provides a right of access, certain records about you may be available under the Freedom of Information Act.

    When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other Departmental system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 6 CFR part 5. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. While no specific form is required, you may obtain forms for this purpose from the Chief Privacy Officer and Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer, http://www.dhs.gov/foia or 1-866-431-0486. In addition, you should:

    • Explain why you believe the Department would have information on you;

    • Identify which component(s) of the Department you believe may have the information about you;

    • Specify when you believe the records would have been created; and

    • Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which DHS component agency may have responsive records;

    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying his/her agreement for you to access his/her records. Without the above information, the component(s) may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    Individuals who wish to contest the accuracy of records in this system of records should submit these requests to the ICE Privacy & Records Office. Requests must comply with verification of identity requirements set forth in Department of Homeland Security Privacy Act regulations at 6 CFR 5.21(d). Please specify the nature of the complaint and provide any supporting documentation. By mail (please note substantial delivery delays exist): ICE Privacy & Records Office, 500 12th Street SW., Mail Stop 5004, Washington, DC 20536. By email: [email protected] Please contact the Privacy & Records Office with any questions about submitting a request or complaint at 202-732-3300 or [email protected]

    NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:

    See “Record Access procedure.”

    EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    The Secretary of Homeland Security, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2), has exempted this system from the following provisions of the Privacy Act: 552a(c)(3), (c)(4); (d); (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), (e)(5), (e)(8); and (g).

    When FALCON-SA receives a record from another system that is exempt from the Privacy Act, DHS will claim the same exemptions as are claimed for the original system of records from which the record originated and also claims any additional exemptions set forth here.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Jonathan R. Cantor, Acting Chief Privacy Officer, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09025 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration New Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: TSA Canine Training Center Adoption Application AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    30-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has forwarded the new Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. TSA published a Federal Register notice, with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments, of the following collection of information on December 13, 2016, 81 FR 89963. The collection involves gathering information from individuals who wish to adopt a TSA canine through the TSA Canine Training Center (CTC) Adoption Program.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by June 5, 2017. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. Comments should be addressed to Desk Officer, Department of Homeland Security/TSA, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected] or faxed to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh, TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011; telephone (571) 227-2062; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Title: TSA Canine Training Center Adoption Application.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1652-XXXX.

    Form(s): TSA Form 433.

    Affected Public: Individuals seeking to adopt a TSA canine.

    Abstract: The TSA Canine Program is a Congressionally-mandated program that operates pursuant to section 110(e)(3) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71 (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001); the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296 (116 Stat. 2135, Nov. 25, 2002); and the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, Public Law 110-53 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007). The TSA Canine Program developed the TSA CTC to train and deploy explosive detection canine teams to Federal, State, and local agencies in support of daily activities that protect the transportation domain. TSA created the TSA CTC Adoption Program under the authority of 41 CFR 102-36.35(d) and 102-36.365 to find suitable individuals or families to adopt and provide good homes to canines who do not graduate from the training program. Individuals seeking to adopt a TSA canine must complete the TSA CTC Adoption Application. This collection of information allows the TSA CTC to collect personal information from the applicants to determine their suitability to adopt a TSA canine.

    Number of Respondents: 300.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 50 hours annually.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09038 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Transportation Security Administration [Docket No. TSA-2014-0001] Intent To Request Revision From OMB of One Current Public Collection of Information: TSA Pre✓® Application Program AGENCY:

    Transportation Security Administration, DHS.

    ACTION:

    60-day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) invites public comment on one currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number 1652-0059, abstracted below, that we will submit to OMB for a revision in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). The ICR, which will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review following the required public comment periods, describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The collection involves the voluntary submission of biographic and biometric information that TSA uses to verify identity and conduct a security threat assessment for the TSA Pre✓® Application Program. The security threat assessment compares an applicant's information against criminal history, immigration, intelligence, and regulatory violations databases to determine if the person poses a low risk to transportation or national security and should be eligible for expedited screening through TSA Pre✓® lanes at airports.

    DATES:

    Send your comments by July 3, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be emailed to [email protected] or delivered to the TSA PRA Officer, Office of Information Technology (OIT), TSA-11, Transportation Security Administration, 601 South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6011.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christina A. Walsh at the above address, or by telephone (571) 227-2062.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The ICR documentation is available at http://www.reginfo.gov. Therefore, in preparation for OMB review and approval of the following information collection, TSA is soliciting comments to—

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement 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;

    (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 using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Information Collection Requirement

    Pursuant to the statutory authorities explained below, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has implemented a voluntary enrollment program for individuals to apply for the TSA Pre✓® Application Program. Section 109(a)(3) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71 (115 Stat. 597, 613, Nov. 19, 2001), codified at 49 U.S.C. 114 note) provides TSA with the authority to “establish requirements to implement trusted passenger programs and use available technologies to expedite security screening of passengers who participate in such programs, thereby allowing security screening personnel to focus on those passengers who should be subject to more extensive screening.” In addition, TSA has express, unlimited statutory authority to establish and collect a fee for any registered traveler program by publication of a notice in the Federal Register, as outlined in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006, Public Law 109-90 (119 Stat. 2064, 2088-89, Oct. 18, 2005).

    Under the TSA Pre✓® Application Program, individuals may submit biographic and biometric information directly to TSA that TSA uses to conduct a security threat assessment (STA) of criminal, immigration, intelligence, and regulatory violation databases. TSA uses the STA results to decide if an individual poses a low risk to transportation or national security. TSA issues approved applicants a known traveler number (KTN) that they may use when making travel reservations. Airline passengers who submit a KTN when making airline reservations are eligible for expedited screening on flights originating from U.S. airports with TSA Pre✓® lanes.1 TSA uses the traveler's KTN and other information during passenger prescreening to verify that the individual traveling matches the information on TSA's list of known travelers and to confirm TSA Pre✓® expedited screening eligibility.

    1 Passengers who are eligible for expedited screening through a dedicated TSA Pre✓® lane typically will receive more limited physical screening, e.g., will be able to leave on their shoes, light outerwear, and belt; to keep their laptop in its case; and to keep their 3-1-1 compliant liquids/gels bag in a carry-on. For airports with TSA Pre✓® lanes, see https://www.tsa.gov/precheck/map.

    Interested applicants must provide certain minimum required data elements, including, but not limited to, name, date of birth, gender, address, contact information, country of birth, images of identity documents, proof of citizenship or immigration status, and biometrics via a secure interface. TSA uses this information to conduct a STA, make a final eligibility determination for the TSA Pre✓® Application Program, and verify the identities of TSA Pre✓® enrolled and approved individuals when they are traveling.

    TSA sends the applicants' fingerprints and associated information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the purpose of comparing their fingerprints to other fingerprints in the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) system or its successor systems including civil, criminal, and latent fingerprint repositories. The FBI may retain applicants' fingerprints and associated information in NGI after the completion of their application and, while retained, their fingerprints may continue to be compared against other fingerprints submitted to or retained by NGI. TSA will also transmit applicants' biometrics for enrollment into the Department of Homeland Security Automated Biometrics Identification System (IDENT).

    TSA is revising the collection of information to expand enrollment options and the potential use of biographic and biometric (e.g., fingerprints, iris scans, and/or photo) information. This revision would facilitate use of the STA for comparability determinations, such as allowing a TSA Pre✓® Application Program applicant to participate in programs with a comparable STA, such as the Hazardous Materials Endorsement Threat Assessment Program, or obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) without requiring an additional STA. Also, TSA may use applicants' biometric information in TSA's Biometric Authentication Technology (BAT) effort, which will use biometrics in place of credentials and boarding passes to authenticate the identity of TSA Pre✓® Application Program applicants at airport checkpoints.

    When the STA is complete, TSA makes a final determination on eligibility for the TSA Pre✓® Application Program and notifies applicants of its decision. Most applicants generally should expect to receive notification from TSA within two to three weeks of the submission of their completed applications. If initially deemed ineligible by TSA, applicants will have an opportunity to correct cases of misidentification or inaccurate criminal records. Applicants must submit a correction of any information they believe to be inaccurate within 60 days of issuance of TSA's letter. If a corrected record is not received by TSA within the specified amount of time, the agency may make a final determination to deny eligibility. Individuals who TSA determines are ineligible for the TSA Pre✓® Application Program will be screened at airport security checkpoints pursuant to standard screening protocols.

    The TSA Pre✓® Application Program enhances aviation security by permitting TSA to better focus its limited security resources on passengers who are more likely to pose a threat to aviation, while also facilitating and improving the commercial aviation travel experience for the public. Travelers who choose not to enroll in this initiative are not subject to any limitations on their travel because of their choice; they will be processed through normal TSA screening before entering the sterile areas of airports. TSA also retains the authority to perform standard or other screening on a random basis on TSA Pre✓® Application Program participants and any other travelers authorized to receive expedited physical screening.

    TSA estimates that there will be 2,497,903 annualized enrollments over a three-year period. This estimate is based on current and projected enrollment with TSA's existing program. TSA estimates that there will be 4,717,423 annualized hours based on a three-year projection. TSA estimates an average of 1.8885533 hours per applicant to complete the enrollment process, which includes providing biographic and biometric information to TSA (via an enrollment center or pre-enrollment options) and the burden for any records correction for the applicant, if applicable. TSA estimates the annualized cost burden will be $160,628,269 based on a three-year projection. The applicant fee remains $85, which covers TSA's program costs, TSA's enrollment vendor's costs, and the FBI fee for the criminal history records check.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Christina A. Walsh, TSA Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, Office of Information Technology.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09030 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5994-N-02] Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving To Work Demonstration Program Solicitation of Comment; Waiver Revision and Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice revises the parameters of three waiver provisions and reopens the comment period for HUD's January 23, 2017 Federal Register notice entitled “Operations Notice for the Expansion of the Moving To Work Demonstration Program Solicitation of Comment.”

    DATES:

    Comment due date: The comment deadline for the January 23, 2017 notice, as revised by this notice, is June 5, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Marianne Nazzaro, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410; email address [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The MTW demonstration program was established under Section 204 of Title II of section 101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134 (approved April 26, 1996). The demonstration was significantly expanded under the 2016 MTW expansion statute, Section 239 of Division L, Title IV of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113 (approved December 18, 2015) (2016 MTW expansion). The 2016 MTW expansion authorizes HUD to expand the MTW demonstration program from the current level of 39 PHAs to an additional 100 PHAs over a period of seven years.

    On January 23, 2017 (82 FR 8056), HUD published in the Federal Register a notice that sought comment on the proposed methods of operations for PHAs joining the MTW demonstration through the 2016 MTW expansion. Included in that notice are appendices that list available waivers, and the parameters of those waivers. These include Appendix A, “General Waivers” (82 FR 8071 et seq.), and Appendix B, “Conditional Waivers” (82 FR 8076 et seq.). General waivers are those that will be granted without HUD review beyond the MTW application review. Conditional waivers are those waivers that will be granted following additional HUD review and approval.

    This notice makes a revision to one of the Appendix A waivers, and two of the Appendix B waivers.

    II. Revisions to Parameters of Waivers A. Appendix A: General Waivers

    For the waiver entitled “Authorizations Related to Family Self Sufficiency,” one of the available activities listed in the fourth column is: “The Agency is authorized to develop its own recruitment and selection procedures for its FSS program(s).” In the fifth column, “Parameters,” the corresponding statement as originally published (82 FR 8072 (January 23, 2017)) reads:

    Recruitment, eligibility, and selection policies and procedures must be consistent with the Department's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. Agency may not require families to participate in the program as a condition of receiving housing assistance. Agency may not include current work status, work history and/or source of income as part of the selection criteria. “Family” is not limited to families with a member who is able to work full time, but is defined broadly so as not to exclude families with a member who is disabled but able to work, disabled but unable to work, or working as a caregiver for a family member with a disability.

    This statement is revised by this notice to remove the second sentence and add two new sentences in its place, so that the statement reads (emphasis added):

    Recruitment, eligibility, and selection policies and procedures must be consistent with the Department's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. A PHA may make FSS participation mandatory by waiving the statutory and regulatory definition of FSS family or participating family which is “a family that resides in public housing or receives assistance under the rental certificate or rental voucher programs, and that elects to participate in the FSS program” (24 CFR 984.103(b)). The Agency may not make FSS participation mandatory for individuals that do not meet the definition of an eligible family at Section 23(n)(3) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act), 42 U.S.C. 1437u(n)(3), and those exempted from the Community Service Requirement under Section 12(c)(2)(A), (B), (D) and (E) of the 1937 Act, 42 U.S.C. 1437j(c)(2)(A), (B), (D), and (E). If the Agency requires FSS participation as a condition for housing subsidy, the Agency must develop and adopt a non-compliance policy and a hardship exemption policy and conduct an impact analysis in accordance with MTW guidance prior to the implementation of the activity. If an Agency terminates the housing subsidy or tenancy of a family for alleged violation of mandatory FSS participation, it will provide a notice at least 60 days prior to the date of termination informing the family that it is entitled to a hearing under the procedures stated in the Agency's Grievance Procedure (24 CFR part 966, subpart B). Any resulting termination of assistance or tenancy must be based on the noncompliance policy, and there shall be no termination of tenancy or assistance if such action would result in hardship for the family under the hardship policy. The noncompliance policy may not include minor infractions of FSS as a basis for termination of tenancy or subsidy. An Agency may not include current work status, work history and/or source of income as part of the selection criteria. “Family” is not limited to families with a member who is able to work full time, but is defined broadly so as not to exclude families with a member who is disabled but able to work, disabled but unable to work, or working as a caregiver for a family member with a disability.

    B. Appendix B: Conditional Waivers

    For waiver 3 under the “Activities Related to Public Housing” heading, entitled “PH—Work Requirements,” the first sentence of the “Available Activities” statement as originally published (82 FR 8079 (January 23, 2017)) reads:

    Work Requirement (PH): The Agency may implement a work requirement for public housing residents between the ages of 18 and 54.

    This sentence is revised to read:

    Work Requirement (PH): The Agency may implement a work requirement for public housing residents between the ages of 18 and 61.

    For waiver 6 under the “Activities Related to Housing Choice Vouchers” heading, entitled “HCV & PBV—Work Requirements,” the first sentence of the “Available Activities” statement as originally published (82 FR 8079 (January 23, 2017)) reads:

    Work Requirement (HCV & PBV): The Agency may implement a work requirement for HCV and PBV residents between the ages of 18 and 54.

    This sentence is revised to read:

    Work Requirement (HCV & PBV): The Agency may implement a work requirement for HCV and PBV residents between the ages of 18 and 61.

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Jemine A. Bryon, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Appendix A Excerpt [Note: Comments are being accepted on the original notice and appendices published at 82 FR 8056 (January 23, 2017) until the comment deadline in this notice. These excerpts from Appendices A and B are provided to show the context of the changes described in this notice] No. Waiver name Waiver description Regulations waived Available activities Parameters Activities Related to Public Housing and Housing Choice Vouchers 3 Authorizations Related to Family Self Sufficiency The Agency is authorized to operate any of its existing self-sufficiency and training programs, including its Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) Program and any successor programs exempt from certain HUD program requirements. If the Agency receives dedicated funding for an FSS coordinator, such funds must be used to employ a self-sufficiency coordinator. In developing and operating such programs, the Agency is authorized to establish strategic relationships and partnerships with local private and public agencies and service providers to leverage expertise and funding. In implementing this waiver, the Agency must execute a contract of participation, or other locally developed agreement, that is at least 5 years but no more than 10 years. However, notwithstanding the above, any funds granted pursuant to a competition must be used in accordance with the NOFA and the approved application and work plan Certain provisions of Section 23 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR 984 Waive Operating a Required FSS Program (Both): The Agency is authorized to waive its requirement to operate the traditional FSS program
  • Alternative to Program Coordinating Committee (Both): The Agency is authorized to create an alternative structure for securing local resources to support an FSS program
  • Alternative Family Selection Procedures (Both): The Agency is authorized to develop its own recruitment and selection procedures for its FSS program(s)
  • Recruitment, eligibility, and selection policies and procedures must be consistent with the Department's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements. A PHA may make FSS participation mandatory by waiving the statutory and regulatory definition of FSS family or participating family which is “a family that resides in public housing or receives assistance under the rental certificate or rental voucher programs, and that elects to participate in the FSS program” (24 CFR 984.103(b)). The Agency may not make FSS participation mandatory for individuals that do not meet the definition of an eligible family at Section 23(n)(3) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (1937 Act) (42 U.S.C. 1437u(n)(3)), and those exempted from the Community Service Requirement under Section 12(c)(2)(A), (B), (D) and (E) of the 1937 Act, 42 U.S.C. 1437j(c)(2)(A), (B), (D), and (E). If the Agency requires FSS participation as a condition for housing subsidy, a hardship policy and impact analysis must be developed and adopted in accordance with MTW guidance prior to the implementation of the activity. If an Agency terminates the housing subsidy or tenancy of a family for alleged violation of mandatory FSS participation, the family will be entitled to a hearing under the Agency's Grievance Procedure (24 CFR part 966, subpart B). An Agency may not include current work status, work history and/or source of income as part of the selection criteria. “Family” is not limited to families with a member who is able to work full time, but is defined broadly so as not to exclude families with a member who is disabled but able to work, disabled but unable to work, or working as a caregiver for a family member with a disability.
    Modify or Eliminate the Contract of Participation (Both): The Agency is authorized to modify the terms of, or eliminate the contract of participation, in lieu of a local form The Agency may modify the terms of the contract of participation to align with adjustments made to its FSS program(s) using MTW flexibility. Further, the Agency may discontinue use of the contract of participation and instead employ a locally-developed agreement that codifies the terms of participation. Policies for Addressing Increases in Family Income (Both): The Agency is authorized to set its own policies for addressing increases in family income during participation in the FSS program Consistent with the goals and structure of its MTW FSS program, the Agency can set policies for whether income increases are recognized for purposes of increasing rent or changing the amount of funds moved to escrow/savings through the program. The Agency may not use income increases during participation in the FSS program to change a family's eligibility status for purposes of participation in the FSS program or for the receipt public housing or HCV assistance. Calculating FSS Credits (Both): The Agency is authorized to create alternative methods for computing the family's FSS credit The Agency may set policies to defer income increases to savings OR to allow participants to earn savings deposits based on meeting certain program milestones. Such policies must be made clear to participants in writing prior to starting their participation in the program. Disbursement of Savings (Both): The Agency may set its own policies for when savings funds can be disbursed to participants Consistent with the goals and structure of its MTW FSS program, the Agency can set policies for when savings are disbursed to participants. This could mean all funds are disbursed at once, or at certain key points of participation. Such policies must be made clear to participants in writing prior to starting their participation in the program.
    Appendix B Excerpt No. Waiver name Waiver description Regulations waived Available activities Parameters Activities Related to Public Housing 3 PH—Work Requirements The Agency is authorized to implement a requirement that a specified segment of its public housing residents work as a condition of tenancy subject to subject to all applicable Fair Housing Requirements and the mandatory admission and prohibition requirements imposed by sections 576-578 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 and Section 428 of Public Law 105-276. Those individuals exempt from the Community Service Requirement in accordance with Section 12(c)(2)(A), (B), (D) and (E) of the 1937 Act are also exempt from the Agency's work requirement Certain provisions of Section 3 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR 960.206 Work Requirement (PH): The Agency may implement a work requirement for public housing residents between the ages of 18 and 61. The requirement shall be no less than 15 hours of work per week and no more than 30 hours of work per week. Work requirements shall not be applied to exclude, or have the effect of excluding, the admission of or participation by persons with disabilities or families that include persons with disabilities. Work requirements shall not apply to person with disabilities or families that include persons with disabilities. However, persons with disabilities and families that include persons with disabilities must have equal access to the full range of program services and other incentives Residents must have the opportunity to utilize the provisions of the Agency's Grievance Procedure to resolve a dispute regarding a determination that a resident has failed to comply with the work requirement. The Agency must update its ACOP to include a description of the circumstances in which residents shall be exempt for the requirement and hardship policies. The ACOP should include a description of what is considered work as well as other activities that shall be considered acceptable substitutes for work. Services, or referrals to services, must be provided by the Agency to support preparing families to comply with this requirement. The hardship policy in the ACOP should apply to residents who are actively trying to comply with the Agency's work requirement, but are having difficulties obtaining work or an acceptable substitute. The ACOP should also describe the consequences of failure to comply with the work requirement. Agencies may not implement the PH-Work Requirements Waiver on individuals exempted from the Community Service Requirement under Section 12(c)(2)(A), (B), (D) and (E).
  • While the work requirements do not apply to persons with disabilities or families that include a person with disabilities, such persons and families are not precluded from working or engaging in substitute activities (such as caring for a family member who is disabled). Regardless of the level of engagement with work or substitute activities, persons and families that include persons with disabilities must have equal access to services or referral to services to support their efforts to obtain work or an acceptable substitute, and any other services or other incentives associated with the program.
  • Activities Related to Housing Choice Vouchers 6 HCV & PBV—Work Requirements The Agency is authorized to implement a requirement that a specified segment of its HCV and PBV residents work as a condition of tenancy subject to all applicable Fair Housing Requirements Certain provisions of Sections 8(o)(7)(a), 8(o)(13)(F), and 8(o)(13)(G) of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR 982.303, 982.309 and 983 Support F Work Requirement (HCV & PBV): The Agency may implement a work requirement for HCV and PBV residents between the ages of 18 and 61. The requirement shall be no less than 15 hours of work per week and no more than 30 hours of work per week. The Agency shall provide supportive services to assist families obtain employment or an acceptable substitute. Work requirements shall not be applied to exclude, or have the effect of excluding, the admission of or participation by persons with disabilities or families that include persons with disabilities. Work requirements shall not apply to persons with disabilities or families that include persons with disabilities. However, persons with disabilities and families that include persons with disabilities must have equal access to the full range of program services and other incentives The Agency must update its Administrative Plan to include a description of the circumstances in which families shall be exempt from the requirement. The Administrative Plan must also include a hardship policy. The Administrative Plan should include a description of what is considered work as well as other activities that shall be considered acceptable substitutes for work. Services, or referrals to services, must be provided by the Agency to support preparing families for the termination of assistance. The hardship policy in the Administrative Plan should apply to families who are actively trying to comply with the Agency's work requirement, but are having difficulties obtaining work or an acceptable substitute. The Administrative Plan should also describe the consequences of failure to comply with the work requirement.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09139 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [17X LLWO600000.L18200000.XP0000] Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council; Postponement of Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The May 1, 2017, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council meeting has been postponed.

    DATES:

    The meeting was scheduled for May 1, 2017, in Socorro, New Mexico, and will be rescheduled at a later date. We will publish a future notice with the new meeting date and location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jack River, Forester, BLM Albuquerque District Office, (505) 761-8755; or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for Mr. River. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in BLM's Albuquerque District. Additional information is available in the meeting notice published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17277).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Patrick Wilkinson, Acting Assistant Director, Communications.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09006 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [17X LLWO600000.L18200000.XP0000] Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, Colorado; Postponement of Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The May 3, 2017, Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) Advisory Council meeting has been postponed.

    DATES:

    The meeting was scheduled for May 3, 2017, in Delta, Colorado, and will be rescheduled at a later date. We will publish a future notice with the new meeting date and location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Collin Ewing, Advisory Council designated Federal Official, (970) 244-3049; or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for Mr. Ewing. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the Resource Management Plan process for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness. Additional information is available in the meeting notice published on April 12, 2017 (82 FR 17683).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Patrick Wilkinson, Acting Assistant Director, Communications.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09009 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [17X LLWO600000.L18200000.XP0000] John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council, Oregon; Postponement of Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The May 18 and 19, 2017, John Day—Snake Resource Advisory Council meeting has been postponed.

    DATES:

    The meeting was scheduled for May 18 and 19, 2017, in Baker City, Oregon, and will be rescheduled at a later date. We will publish a future notice with the new meeting date and location.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Clark, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Prineville District Office, (541) 416-6700; or by email at [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to leave a message or question for Ms. Clark. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    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 in central and eastern Oregon. Additional information is available in the meeting notice published on April 13, 2017 (82 FR 17852).

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    Patrick Wilkinson, Acting Assistant Director, Communications.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09005 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Magnetic Tape Cartridges and Components Thereof, DN 3221; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Sony Corporation; Sony Storage Media Solutions Corporation; Sony Storage Media Manufacturing Corporation; Sony DADC US Inc.; and Sony Latin America Inc. on April 28, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain magnetic tape cartridges and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Fujifilm Holdings Corporation of Japan; Fujifilm Corporation of Japan; Fujifilm Media Manufacturing Co., Ltd. of Japan; Fujifilm Holdings America Corporation of Valhalla, NY; and Fujifilm Recording Media U.S.A., Inc. of Bedford, MA. The complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3221”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures).1 Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 1, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09017 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Digital Cameras, Software, and Components Thereof, DN 3220; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000.

    General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Carl Zeiss AG and ASML Netherlands B.V. on April 28, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain digital cameras, software, and components thereof. The complaint names as respondents Nikon Corporation of Japan; Sendai Nikon Corporation of Japan; Nikon Inc. of Melville, NY; Nikon (Thailand) Co., Ltd. of Thailand; Nikon Imaging (China) Co., Ltd of China; and PT Nikon Indonesia of Indonesia. The complainants request that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.

    In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:

    (i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;

    (ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;

    (iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;

    (iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and

    (v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.

    Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. There will be further opportunities for comment on the public interest after the issuance of any final initial determination in this investigation.

    Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3220”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (See Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, Electronic Filing Procedures).1 Persons with questions regarding filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000).

    1 Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures: https://www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_on_filing_procedures.pdf.

    Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this Investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) By the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel,2 solely for cybersecurity purposes. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary and on EDIS.3

    2 All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements.

    3 Electronic Document Information System (EDIS): https://edis.usitc.gov.

    This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 1, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09016 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1054] Certain Height-Adjustable Desk Platforms and Components Thereof; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on March 30, 2017, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Varidesk LLC of Coppell, Texas. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on April 21, 2017. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain height-adjustable desk platforms and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,113,703 (“the '703 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,277,809 (“the '809 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,554,644 (“the '644 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists or is in the process of being established as required by the applicable Federal Statute.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, Katherine Hiner, telephone (202) 205-1802.

    Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2017).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on April 28, 2017, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain height-adjustable desk platforms and components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-11 of the '703 patent; claims 1-3, 5-18, and 22-27 of the '809 patent; and claims 1-27, 29, 30, and 33-36 of the '644 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is:

    Varidesk LLC, 1221 South Belt Line Road, #500, Coppell, TX 75019

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Lumi Legend Corporation, 22/F., Building 1, Lisi Plaza, Huifeng East Road, Ningbo, China 315100 Innovative Office Products LLC, 100 Kuebler Road,, Easton, Pennsylvania 18040 Ergotech Group LLC, 100 Kuebler Road, Easton, Pennsylvania 18040 Transform Partners LLC (dba Mount-It!), 9520 Black Mountain Rd St D, San Diego, CA 92126-4532 Monoprice, Inc., 11701 6th Street, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Ningbo Loctek Visual Technology Corporation, Science & Technology Zone, Jiangshan Town, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, China 315191 Zhejiang Loctek Smart Drive Technology Co., Ltd., Science & Technology Zone, Jiangshan Town, Yinzhou District, Ningbo, China 315191 Loctek Inc., 47618 Kato Road, Fremont, CA 94538 Zoxou, Inc., 47618 Kato Road, Fremont, CA 94538 Flexispot, 4569 Las Positas Rd, Suite A, Livermore, CA 94551

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations will not participate as a party in this investigation; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 1, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09018 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-982] Certain RF Capable Integrated Circuits and Products Containing the Same: Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Complainant's Unopposed Motion To Terminate the Investigation in Its Entirety Based Upon Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 28) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting an unopposed motion to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3042. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted Inv. No. 337-TA-982 on January 21, 2016, based on a complaint filed by ParkerVision, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (“ParkerVision”). 81 FR 3474-75 (Jan. 21, 2016). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain RF capable integrated circuits and products containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,571,135 (“the '135 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,879,817 (“the '817 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,929,638 (“the '638 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 9,118,528. The notice of investigation named the following respondents: Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California; LG Electronics, Inc. of Seoul, Republic of Korea; LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. of San Diego, California; Qualcomm Incorporated of San Diego, California; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwon-Shi, Republic of Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey; and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. of San Jose, California. Id. at 3474. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is also a party to the investigation. Id. at 3475.

    After institution, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and the Samsung respondents separately were terminated from the investigation. See Notice (Aug. 18, 2016); Notice (Aug. 19, 2016). The asserted claims of the '135 patent, the '817 patent, and the '638 patent were also terminated from the investigation. See Notice (Feb. 22, 2017); Notice (Sept. 7, 2016).

    On March 12, 2017, ParkerVision moved to terminate the investigation in its entirety based upon withdrawal of the complaint. On March 23, 2017, the Commission investigative attorney filed a response in support of the motion. That same day, the respondents indicated that they do not oppose the motion.

    On April 3, 2017, the ALJ issued the subject ID, granting the unopposed motion. The ALJ found that the motion complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(1)) and further found that no extraordinary circumstances prohibited granting the motion. None of the parties petitioned for review of the ID.

    The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: April 28, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08962 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice 17-022] NASA International Space Station Advisory Committee; Meeting AGENCY:

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA International Space Station (ISS) Advisory Committee. The purpose of the meeting is to review all aspects related to the safety and operational readiness of the ISS, and to assess the possibilities for using the ISS for future space exploration.

    DATES:

    Thursday, June 1, 2017, 2:00-3:00 p.m., Local Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    NASA Headquarters, Glennan Conference Room (1Q39), 300 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20546. Note: 1Q39 is located on the first floor of NASA Headquarters.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Patrick Finley, 202-358-5684, [email protected], Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. This meeting is also accessible via teleconference. To participate telephonically, please contact Mr. Finley via email at [email protected] before 4:30 p.m. Local Time, on May 30, 2017. You will need to provide your name, affiliation, and phone number.

    Attendees will be requested to sign a register and to comply with NASA Headquarters security requirements, including the presentation of a valid picture ID to Security before access to NASA Headquarters. Due to the Real ID Act, Public Law 109-13, any attendees with driver's licenses issued from non-compliant states/territories must present a second form of ID. [Federal employee badge; passport; active military identification card; enhanced driver's license; U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card; Native American tribal document; school identification accompanied by an item from LIST C (documents that establish employment authorization) from the “List of the Acceptable Documents” on Form I-9]. Non-compliant states/territories are: Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, and Montana. Foreign nationals attending this meeting will be required to provide a copy of their passport and visa in addition to providing the following information no less than 10 days prior to the meeting: Full name; gender; date/place of birth; citizenship; passport information (number, country, telephone); visa information (number, type, expiration date); employer/affiliation information (name of institution, address, country, telephone); title/position of attendee. To expedite admittance, attendees that are U.S. citizens and Permanent Residents (green card holders) are requested to provide full name and citizenship status no less than 3 working days in advance. Information should be sent to Patrick Finley via email at [email protected], or by fax at (202) 358-3099. It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

    Patricia D. Rausch, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08963 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7120-13-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.

    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed 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. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site: http://www.nsf.gov/events/. This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8687.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Crystal Robinson, Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08986 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information Collection AGENCY:

    National Science Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing plans to request approval for the collection of research and development data through the Nonprofit Research Activities survey. In accordance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are providing opportunity for public comment on this action. After obtaining and considering public comment, NSF will prepare the submission requesting that OMB approve clearance of this collection for no longer than 3 years.

    Comments: Comments are invited on (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NSF, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received by July 3, 2017 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CONACT:

    Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; or send email to [email protected] Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal holidays).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title of Collection: Nonprofit Research Activities Survey.

    OMB Approval Number: 3145-0240.

    Expiration Date of Current Approval: July 31, 2019.

    Type of Request: Intent to renew an information collection.

    Abstract:The new Nonprofit Research Activities (NPRA) survey represents one facet of the R&D measurement component of the NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) statistical program authorized by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 § 505, codified in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (NSF Act), as amended, at 42 U.S.C. 1862. Under paragraph “b”, NCSES is directed to

    “(1) collect, acquire, analyze, report, and disseminate statistical data related to the science and engineering enterprise in the U.S. and other nations that is relevant and useful to practitioners, researchers, policymakers, and the public, including statistical data on:

    (A) Research and development trends;

    (B) the science and engineering workforce;

    (C) U.S. competitiveness in science, engineering, technology, and research and development . . .”

    The primary objective of the new survey is to fill data gaps in the National Patterns of R&D Resources in such a way that it is (a) compatible with data collected on the business, government, and higher education sectors of the U.S. economy and (b) appropriate for international comparisons. Since the last survey of research activity in the nonprofit sector occurred in 1996 and 1997, interest from the community has grown significantly in recent years. Thus, it is important that a new survey of nonprofit R&D be fielded to update current national estimates for the nonprofit sector.

    NCSES recently concluded a pilot test of the new Nonprofit Research Activities Survey (NPRA) with 3,640 nonprofit organizations. Using the lessons learned from the pilot, NCSES now plans to conduct a full survey.

    Use of the information: The primary purpose of this survey is to collect nationally representative data on nonprofit research spending and funding.

    The nonprofit sector is one of four major sectors that perform and/or fund research and development (R&D) in the U.S. Historically, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has combined this sector's data with the business, government, and higher education sectors' data to estimate total national R&D expenditures via the annual National Patterns of R&D Resources report. The other three sectors are surveyed annually; however, it has been 20 years since NSF last collected R&D data from nonprofit organizations.

    The full NPRA survey will collect R&D and other related data from U.S. nonprofit organizations. This survey will collect the following:

    • Total amount spent on R&D activities within nonprofit organizations,

    • Number of employees and R&D employees,

    • Sources of funds for R&D expenditures,

    • Expenditures by field of R&D (biological and health sciences, engineering, physical sciences, social sciences, etc.),

    • Expenditures by type of R&D (basic research, applied research, or experimental development),

    • Total amount of R&D funding provided to entities outside the nonprofit organization,

    • Types of recipients receiving R&D funding, and

    • Funding by field of R&D (biological and health sciences, engineering, physical sciences, social sciences, etc.).

    Expected respondents: The sample will be 6,500 nonprofit organizations. The target population for the NPRA Survey includes all NPOs categorized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as 501(c)(3) public charities, 501(c)(3) private foundations, and other exempt organizations [e.g., 501(c)(1), 501(c)(2)]. To increase the efficiency of sampling organizations performing or funding research, organizations that are highly unlikely to be conducting research activities or already included in the other NCSES R&D surveys will be removed. In addition, organizations that do not meet a minimum size threshold, based on assets for private foundations and expenses for public charities, will be eliminated. The sample will be allocated to obtain a minimum of 800 completed responses from performers and 800 from funders.

    Estimate of burden: We expect a response rate of 60%. Based on the responses to the pilot survey, we estimate the survey to require 4 hours to complete if the respondent both funds and performs research. The response time for nonprofit organizations that do not conduct or fund research should be under 20 minutes. We estimate that of the 6,500 organizations surveyed, no more than 1,300 will identify as performer or funders and submit a full survey response. Therefore our estimate of burden for the survey is 6,067 hours (5,200 hours for the 1,300 estimated performers and funders; 867 hours for the remaining 2,600 organizations estimated to complete the survey).

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09044 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [SEC File No. 270-513, OMB Control No. 3235-0571] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736 Extension: Rule 206(4)-6

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) a request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.

    The title for the collection of information is “Rule 206(4)-6” under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) (“Advisers Act”) and the collection has been approved under OMB Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR 275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is required to: (i) Adopt and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes securities in the best interest of clients, including procedures to address any material conflict that may arise between the interest of the adviser and the client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may obtain information on how the adviser has voted with respect to their securities; and (iii) describe to clients the adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and, on request, furnish a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client. The rule is designed to assure that advisers that vote proxies for their clients vote those proxies in their clients' best interest and provide clients with information about how their proxies were voted.

    Rule 206(4)-6 contains “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. The collection is mandatory and responses to the disclosure requirement are not kept confidential.

    The respondents are investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to monitor the advisers' performance of their proxy voting activities. The information required by Advisers Act rule 204-2, a recordkeeping rule, also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and oversight program. Without the information collected under the rules, advisory clients would not have information they need to assess the adviser's services and monitor the adviser's handling of their accounts, and the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs.

    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the collection of information requirements under the rule is 10,942. It is estimated that each of these advisers is required to spend on average 10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting procedures under the requirements of the rule, for a total burden of 109,420 hours. We further estimate that on average, approximately 292 clients of each adviser would request copies of the underlying policies and procedures. We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours per client to deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a total burden of 319,506 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule 206(4)-6 results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-registered investment advisers of a total of 428,926 hours.

    Records related to an adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and proxy voting history are separately required under the Advisers Act recordkeeping rule 204-2 (17 CFR 275.204-2). The standard retention period required for books and records under rule 204-2 is five years, in an easily accessible place, the first two years in an appropriate office of the investment adviser. OMB has previously approved the collection with this retention period.

    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov. Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to: [email protected]; and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to: [email protected] Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: April 28, 2017. Eduardo Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08971 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80558; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-120] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendments No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Amended, To Establish the Third Party Connectivity Service April 28, 2017. I. Introduction

    On August 16, 2016, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 a proposed rule change to establish the third party connectivity service. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 2, 2016.4 The Commission received one comment letter regarding the proposal on September 12, 2016.5 Nasdaq responded to the comment letter on October 4, 2016.6 On October 5, 2016, the Commission designated a longer period for Commission action on the proposed rule change.7 Subsequently, the Commission received three additional comment letters regarding the proposal: One from Virtu Financial, another from Bats responding to Nasdaq's Letter, and a third from SIFMA.8 On November 30, 2016, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.9 Thereafter, the Commission received comments from IEX, SIFMA, KCG Holdings, and Citadel Securities 10 regarding the proposed rule change and Nasdaq responded to the comments and filed Amendment No. 1.11 On January 31, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.12 The Commission received two comment letters one from Bats and another from IEX on the amended proposal.13 On April 3, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 3 to the proposed rule change.14 On April 13, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 4.15 On April 18, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 5 to the proposed rule change.16 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comment on the proposed rule change, as amended, and is approving the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78713 (August 29, 2016), 81 FR 60768 (“Notice”).

    5See letter from Eric Swanson, Esq., General Counsel, Bats Global Markets, Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated September 12, 2016 (“Bats Letter I”).

    6See letter from Jeffrey S. Davis, Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated October 4, 2016 (“Nasdaq Letter I”).

    7See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79049, 81 FR 70452 (October 12, 2016).

    8See letters from Douglas A. Cifu, Chief Executive Officer, Virtu Financial, dated October 6, 2016 (“Virtu Letter”), Eric Swanson, General Counsel, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated October 12, 2016 (“Bats Letter II”), and Melissa McGregor, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (“SIFMA”), dated November 23, 2016 (“SIFMA Letter I”), to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission.

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79431, 81 FR 87981 (December 6, 2016) (“OIP”).

    10See letters from John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer, IEX Group, Inc. (“IEX”), dated December 9, 2016 (“IEX Letter I”), Melissa McGregor, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated December 20, 2016 (“SIFMA Letter II”), John A. McCarthy, General Counsel, KCG Holdings, Inc. (“KCG Holdings”), dated December 23, 2016 (“KCG Letter”), and Adam C. Cooper, senior Managing Director and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities (“Citadel”), dated December 27, 2016 (“Citadel Letter”), to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission.

    11See letter from T. Sean Bennett, Principal Associate General Counsel, Nasdaq Inc., to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated January 26, 2017 (“Nasdaq Letter II”).

    12 Amendment No. 1 was missing a required exhibit, therefore it was withdrawn and replaced by Amendment No. 2. See Amendment No. 2. The substance of Amendment No. 1 was the same as the substance of Amendment No. 2.

    13See letters from Eric Swanson, Esq., General Counsel, Bats Global Markets, Inc., dated February 6, 2017 (“Bats Letter III”) and John Ramsay, Chief Market Policy Officer, IEX, dated February 15, 2017 (“IEX Letter II”) to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission.

    14See Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 amended the filing to include the Assumption of Liability form.

    15See Amendment No. 4 which was withdrawn and replaced by Amendment No. 5.

    16See Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 5 amended the text of the proposed rule change in response to the comments and withdrew Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4 included the same substantive changes to the rule change however, it was not properly filed.

    II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt the third party connectivity service that will segregate connectivity to the Exchange and its proprietary data feeds from connectivity to third party services and data feeds, including the UTP SIP data feeds.17 Nasdaq states that this segregation is necessary because of increased capacity requirements, noting recent changes to the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) and Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) feeds 18 as well as planned changes to the Unlisted Trading Privileges (“UTP”) Plan data feeds.19

    17 Third party services include not only SIP data feeds, but also data feeds from other exchanges and markets. For example, third party connectivity will support connectivity to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility, BATS Depth Feeds, and NYSE Feeds. See Notice, 81 FR at 60769 n.10.

    18See https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/ctaplan/notifications/traderupdate/CTA%20SIP%201Q16%20Consolidated%20Data%20Operating%20Metrics%20Report.pdf; see also, http://www.opradata.com/specs/opra_bandwidth_apr2016.pdf.

    19 The UTP SIP feeds are comprised of a UTP Quote Data Feed (“UQDF”) and a UTP Trade Data Feed (“UTDF”). The UQDF provides continuous quotations from all market centers trading Nasdaq-listed securities. The UTDF provides continuous last sale information from all market centers trading Nasdaq-listed securities. See http://www.utpplan.com/.

    The third party connectivity service will be available to non-co-location and co-location customers and will enable customers to receive third party market data feeds, including SIP data, and other non-exchange services independent of Nasdaq proprietary feeds. In the proposal, Nasdaq stated that customers using 1Gb circuits to connect to the UTP SIP feeds would need to upgrade to a 10Gb Ultra circuit because of the increase in bandwidth requirements for the new feeds.20 Customers seeking connectivity to the Exchange and its proprietary data feeds may continue to do so through the existing connectivity options under Rule 7034(b) and Rule 7051(a).21 Customers that do not wish to subscribe to the third party connectivity service may connect through an extranet provider or a market data redistributor. The Exchange is proposing to offer services currently available to direct connectivity subscribers under Rule 7051 to subscribers to third party connectivity services because Nasdaq believes they may have the same connectivity needs as customers of the existing direct connectivity service.22

    20 In response to comments, Nasdaq amended the filing to permit the use of 1Gb Ultra connections and proposed that subscribers sign an Assumption of Liability form indicating that they were aware of the risks of using a 1Gb connection and would hold Nasdaq harmless. See Amendments No. 2 and 3. Nasdaq amended the proposal again to replace the Assumption of Liability form with the Capacity Acknowledgement form. See Amendment No. 5.

    21See Notice, 81 FR at 60769.

    22See id.

    The Exchange proposes to assess fees for the third party connectivity service. The fee for installation of either a 10Gb Ultra or 1Gb Ultra third party services co-location or direct connectivity subscription would be $1,500. The monthly fee for a 10Gb Ultra connection would be $5,000 and for a 1Gb Ultra connection the fee would be $2,000.

    The proposal as amended provides that every customer may receive two third party circuit connections free of charge if used solely to receive the UTP SIP feeds (i.e., the UTDF and UQDF feeds) (“UTP-only use”).23 The Exchange proposes to provide UTP-only connectivity beyond the two free connections, for an installation fee of $100 per connection and an ongoing monthly fee of $100 per connection and will offer UTP-only connectivity through either a 1Gb Ultra or a 10Gb Ultra connection.24 The Exchange also proposes to allow customers to elect to receive UTP SIP data through a 1Gb Ultra option in lieu of the 10Gb Ultra option if the customer acknowledges that the subscriber is aware of the risks associated with such an election.25 Finally, the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of the fees from February 28, 2017, through the end of April 2017.

    23See Amendment No. 5.

    24See Amendment No. 5.

    25See Amendment No. 5. Under the proposal, as amended by Amendment No. 5, the Exchange replaced the Assumption of Liability form with a Capacity Acknowledgement form, requiring each subscriber that elects to use the 1Gb Ultra connectivity to receive UTP-only data to acknowledge the risks associated with such connectivity.

    III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,26 which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities, Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,27 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, to protect investors and the public interest, and not to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,28 which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

    26 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

    27 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    28 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).

    As noted above, the Commission received ten comment letters from six commenters on the proposed rule change.29 All of the commenters object to the proposal. The Commission also received two response letters from Nasdaq: One responding to Bats, the second responding to IEX, SIFMA, KCG Holdings, and Citadel.30 In addition, Nasdaq amended its proposal to address the concerns raised by commenters.31

    29See supra notes 5, 8, 10, 13.

    30See Nasdaq Letters I and II.

    31See Amendments No. 2, 3 and 5.

    The commenters raise three main concerns with the proposal. First, commenters assert that the proposal addresses a matter properly governed by the UTP Plan, the terms of which require approval of the proposal by the UTP Operating Committee.32 Second, the commenters assert that Nasdaq would benefit from the proposal to the detriment of customers seeking access to UTP SIP data because subscribers who wish to continue to receive the UTP SIP feed would incur additional costs to receive data that they currently receive in a bundle with Nasdaq proprietary data.33 Third, the commenters question the need for enhanced capacity.34

    32 The Joint Self-Regulatory Organization Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privileges Basis (“The UTP Plan”) is administered by its participants through an operating committee (“UTP Operating Committee”) which is composed of one representative designated by each participant of the plan. See, e.g., Sections IV.A., B.3, and IV.C.2 of the UTP Plan, and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55647 (April 19, 2007), 72 FR 20891 (April 26, 2007).

    33See e.g., Bats Letter I at 3-5; Bats Letter II at 2-3; Bats Letter III at 3-4; Virtu Letter at 1-2; SIFMA Letter I at 2-3; IEX Letter I at 1; SIFMA Letter II at 2; KCG Letter at 2; Citadel Letter at 2; IEX Letter II at 2.

    34See Bats Letter I at 3-5; Bats Letter II at 2-3; Bats Letter III at 3-4; Virtu Letter at 1-2; SIFMA Letter I at 2-3; IEX Letter I at 1; SIFMA Letter II at 2; KCG Letter at 2; Citadel Letter at 2; IEX Letter II at 2.

    Commenters argue that the proposal constitutes an access fee for direct access to UTP data which must be approved by the UTP operating committee under the UTP Plan.35 In addition, according to commenters, the proposal targets UTP data recipients and extends the scope of the UTP system to include customer connectivity, because Nasdaq is the sole provider of direct access to UTP data, and therefore firms seeking direct access to UTP data would be required to subscribe to and pay for the proposed third party connectivity service.36

    35See Bats Letter I at 1-2; Bats Letter II at 3-4; Bats Letter III at 2-3; SIFMA Letter I at 2; IEX Letter I at 1; SIFMA Letter II at 2; KCG Letter at 3-4; IEX Letter II at 1-2.

    36See e.g., Bats Letter I at 3-5; Bats Letter II at 2-3; Bats Letter III at 3-4; Virtu Letter at 1-2; SIFMA Letter I at 2-3; IEX Letter I at 1; SIFMA Letter II at 2; KCG Letter at 2; Citadel Letter at 2; IEX Letter II at 2.

    In response, Nasdaq notes that it has controlled the network and network connectivity without input from the UTP operating committee for over 25 years,37 and that neither the UTP Plan nor the processor agreement grants the UTP operating committee authority over the network or network connectivity associated with SIP data.38 Nasdaq also asserts that the proposal does not target UTP data recipients because UTP SIP data is combined with, and carried on, the same network as data from other sources.39 To further address these concerns, Nasdaq filed Amendment No. 5.40 First, Nasdaq will offer every customer two third party connections for UTP-only use at no cost.41 Second, Nasdaq will allow customers to select a 1Gb Ultra or 10Gb Ultra port to connect to SIP data, both for the free connections provided by Nasdaq and for additional connections to which they subscribe.42 Furthermore, connections for UTP-only use beyond the two free connections will be available for $100 a month in addition to a $100 installation fee, significantly below the charge to receive Nasdaq proprietary data.43 Subscribers electing to receive UTP-only data using a 1Gb Ultra connection would be required to complete a Capacity Acknowledgement form acknowledging in writing the risks associated with such connectivity, though not relieving Nasdaq of liability.44 Nasdaq believes these changes are responsive to the concerns raised by the commenters.45

    37See Nasdaq Letter I at 2-4.

    38 Nasdaq noted that the UTP Plan does not explicitly address connectivity fees. See Nasdaq Letter I at 2.

    39See Nasdaq Letter I at 3.

    40See Amendment No. 5.

    41See e.g. Nasdaq Letter II at 2-3; Amendment No. 5.

    42See id.

    43See id.

    44See Exhibit 3 to Amendment No. 5.

    45See Nasdaq Letter II.

    All commenters challenge the technical necessity of the proposal. Bats asserts that the proposal is technically unnecessary and merely an attempt to increase revenues by charging fees for UTP access. More specifically, Bats argues that Nasdaq SIP bandwidth recommendations are excessive, inconsistent with current peak UTP message traffic, and much higher than recommendations for Nasdaq's own proprietary data products.46 Citadel states that “Nasdaq has failed to provide a reasonable justification for requiring market participants to purchase a high bandwidth 10Gb Ultra connection” to access SIP data.47

    46See Bats Letter I at 3-5; Bats Letter II at 2-3; Bats Letter III at 3-4. Virtu, SIFMA, KCG Holdings, and IEX agree with Bats. See, e.g., Virtu Letter at 1-2; SIFMA Letter I at 2-3; IEX Letter I at 1; SIFMA Letter II at 2; KCG Letter at 2; IEX Letter II at 2.

    47See Citadel Letter at 2. See also Amendment No. 2 which amended the filing to permit the use of 1Gb connections.

    In response, Nasdaq states that it has “done substantial analysis to support the recommendation and it believes the recommendation is consistent with its limited experience with the new Processor.” 48 Nasdaq also states that “[d]uring a one month period (23 trading days) this summer, Nasdaq observed the new UTP Trade Data binary feed exceeding a 1G capacity for a 1 microsecond timeframe in 18 of the trading days. If you add the new UTP Quote Data binary feed to that same connection, the combined feeds exceed 1G capacity for 1 microsecond timeframe in 23 trading days.” 49 In addition, Nasdaq asserts that the UTP operating committee has “input into the bandwidth recommendation” and could act to lower it further.50 Bats responds stating its views that Nasdaq had not demonstrated that the proposal was technically necessary, because in Bat's view, using a one microsecond burst to determine a bandwidth recommendation is misplaced, as the observed peak is not sustained over a full second.51 Bats states that Nasdaq's bandwidth recommendation reflects the maximum burst rate capability of the new system rather than the current capacity requirement.52 SIFMA agrees with Bats on this issue, stating that Nasdaq has not provided any “reasonable justification for requiring member firms to use a 10Gb connection to receive SIP data.” 53 SIFMA states that there is no compelling necessity, either technical or otherwise, for creating a separate connection for access to the SIP data.54

    48See Nasdaq Letter I at 5.

    49See id.

    50See id.

    51See Bats Letter II at 2-3.

    52See id.

    53See SIFMA Letter I at 2.

    54See id.

    Nasdaq disagrees with these arguments, stating its belief that they are reckless, because “there is no disagreement that data feed requirements have increased significantly, and will continue to do so.” 55 Nasdaq further states that it continues to observe spikes in the UTP feeds that exceed 1Gb, justifying the 10Gb offering.56 Nasdaq also asserts that the proposal would segregate data for network resiliency and ensure that connectivity is adequate for intended use. In addition, Nasdaq states that it developed the isolated the network carrying the SIP data to reduce potential conflicts of interest arising from Nasdaq's operation of the Processor and its exchanges.57

    55See Nasdaq Letter II at 2.

    56See id.

    57See Nasdaq Letter II at 3.

    Nasdaq responded to the comments and amended the filing such that any customer that wishes to receive only the data from the UTP SIP will be able receive two UTP-only data connections free of charge via a 1Gb Ultra or 10Gb Ultra connection.58 Additional connections for UTP-only use will be available for $100 per month with an installation fee of $100 per port. Nasdaq represents that those costs are significantly lower than the proposed fees to be assessed for other third party connectivity and will cover some of the costs associated with providing the connectivity.59 Nasdaq noted that current subscribers to three or more connections under Rules 7034(b) and 7051 that contain a mix of Nasdaq proprietary data and UTP data will pay more under the proposal to receive the same data, however, Nasdaq believes that such a fee increase is reasonable in light of the costs incurred by the Exchange in offering separate networks for UTP data feed connectivity and Nasdaq's proprietary data feed connectivity, which will assist subscribers with risk management.60 Further, Nasdaq removed the requirement that subscribers absolve Nasdaq of liability if they take a 1Gb Ultra connection.61

    58See Amendment No. 5 p. 6.

    59See Amendment No. 5 p. 7 and 10.

    60See Amendment No. 5.

    61See Amendment No. 5.

    Nasdaq noted that the UTP Plan does not explicitly address connectivity fees. As to concerns raised by the commenters that Nasdaq has not substantiated the need for the third party connectivity service, Nasdaq noted that the “UTP Operating Committee has had and continues to have input into the bandwidth recommendation” 62 and states that Nasdaq lowered the recommendation in response to the Committee's recommendation and would be ready to lower the recommendation again if the operating committee were to direct it to do so.63 In addition, as noted above, Nasdaq amended the proposal to provide two connections for UTP SIP data free of charge and additional connections at lower fees that reflect some of the costs associated with providing the connectivity.64 The Commission believes that Nasdaq has adequately addressed the concerns raised by the comments in its response letters and its amendments to the proposal.65

    62See Nasdaq Letter I at 5.

    63See id.

    64See Nasdaq Letter I and Nasdaq Letter II; Amendment No. 5.

    65See Nasdaq Letter I and Nasdaq Letter II and amendments to the proposal.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments on the Proposal as Amended

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

    Electronic Comments

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

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-120 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-120. 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 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2016-120 and should be submitted on or before May 25, 2017. V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Amended

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the notice of the amended proposal in the Federal Register. As noted above, Nasdaq amended the proposal to respond to the concerns raised by the commenters. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to offer two free UTP-only connections via a 1Gb Ultra or 10Gb Ultra port. Nasdaq also replaced the Assumption of Liability form with a Capacity Acknowledgement form, such that customers are no longer required to hold Nasdaq harmless if they choose to take a 1Gb Ultra connection. The Exchange also proposes to provide additional UTP-only connectivity for an installation fee of $100 per connection and an ongoing monthly fee of $100 per connection. Because these changes address concerns raised by the commenters, the Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act.66

    66 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2016-120), as amended, be, and hereby is, approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.67

    67 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08983 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80550; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-99] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 104—Equities To Delete Subsection (g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibiting Designated Market Makers From Establishing a New High (Low) Price on the Exchange in a Security the DMM Has a Long (Short) Position During the Last Ten Minutes Prior to the Close of Trading April 28, 2017.

    On October 27, 2016, NYSE MKT (“NYSE MKT” 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 amending Rule 104—Equities to delete subsection (g)(i)(A)(III), which prohibits Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) from establishing, during the last ten minutes of trading before the close, a new high (low) price for the day on the Exchange in a security in which the DMM has a long (short) position. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.3

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79283 (Nov. 10, 2016), 81 FR 81210 (Nov. 17, 2016).

    On December, 20, 2016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.4 On February 15, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 5 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.6 On March 16, 2017, the Exchange filed a response to the Order Instituting Proceedings.7

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79611 (Dec. 20, 2016), 81 FR 95205 (Dec. 27, 2016).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80043 (Feb. 15, 2017), 82 FR 11379 (Feb. 22, 2017) (“Order Instituting Proceedings”). 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., 81 FR at 11380.

    7See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange LLC, dated March 16, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-71/nyse201671-1645043-148163.pdf.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 8 provides that, after initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.9 The 180th day after publication of the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register is May 16, 2017.

    8 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    9See supra note 3.

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,10 designates July 15, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-99).

    10 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.11

    11 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08977 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80552; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-71] Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 104 To Delete Subsection (g)(i)(A)(III) Prohibiting Designated Market Makers From Establishing a New High (Low) Price on the Exchange in a Security the DMM Has a Long (Short) Position During the Last Ten Minutes Prior to the Close of Trading April 28, 2017.

    On October 27, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” 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 amending Rule 104 to delete subsection (g)(i)(A)(III), which prohibits Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”) from establishing, during the last ten minutes of trading before the close, a new high (low) price for the day on the Exchange in a security in which the DMM has a long (short) position. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.3

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79284 (Nov. 10, 2016), 81 FR 81222 (Nov. 17, 2016).

    On December, 20, 2016, the Commission extended to February 15, 2017, the time period in which to approve the proposal, disapprove the proposal, or institute proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposal.4 On February 15, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 5 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.6 Following the Order Instituting Proceedings, the Commission received a comment letter supporting the proposal.7 On March 16, 2017, the Exchange filed a response to the Order Instituting Proceedings.8

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79612 (Dec. 20, 2016), 81 FR 95205 (Dec. 27, 2016).

    5 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80044 (Feb. 15, 2017), 82 FR 11388 (Feb. 22, 2017) (“Order Instituting Proceedings”). 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., 81 FR at 11388.

    7See letter to Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary, Commission, from Stephen John Berger, Managing Director, Government and Regulatory Policy, Citadel Securities, dated May 15, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-71/nyse201671-1643039-147158.pdf.

    8See letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, New York Stock Exchange LLC, dated March 16, 2017, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-71/nyse201671-1645043-148163.pdf.

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act 9 provides that, after initiating disapproval proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the date of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal Register on November 17, 2016.10 The 180th day after publication of the notice of the filing of the proposed rule change in the Federal Register is May 16, 2017.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    10See supra note 3.

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.

    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,11 designates July 15, 2017, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2016-71).

    11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.12

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.

    12 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

    [FR Doc. 2017-08979 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80549; File No. 4-631] Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of the Fourteenth Amendment to the National Market System Plan To Address Extraordinary Market Volatility by Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Investors Exchange LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, NYSE National, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc. April 28, 2017. I. Introduction

    On April 13, 2017, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of the following parties to the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (“the Plan”): 1 Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., Bats BYX Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”), Investors Exchange LLC, NASDAQ BX, Inc., NASDAQ PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”), New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE”), NYSE Arca, Inc., NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE National Inc. (collectively, the “Participants”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to Section 11A(a)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) 2 and Rule 608 thereunder,3 a proposal to amend the Plan (“Fourteenth Amendment”).4 The proposal reflects changes unanimously approved by the Participants. The Fourteenth Amendment proposes to change the implementation date for the twelfth amendment to the Plan (“Twelfth Amendment”), as discussed below. The proposed change does not alter the text of the Plan. The Participants are filing the Fourteenth Amendment for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Rule 608(b)(3)(iii) of Regulation NMS (“Rule 608”) under the Exchange Act.5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments from interested persons.6

    1 On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan, as modified by Amendment No. 1. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091, 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631). On February 20, 2013, the Commission noticed for immediate effectiveness the Second Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953, 78 FR 13113 (February 26, 2013). On April 3, 2013, the Commission approved the Third Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69287, 78 FR 21483 (April 10, 2013). On August 27, 2013, the Commission noticed for immediate effectiveness the Fourth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70273, 78 FR 54321 (September 3, 2013). On September 26, 2013, the Commission approved the Fifth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70530, 78 FR 60937 (October 2, 2013). On January 7, 2014, the Commission noticed for immediate effectiveness the Sixth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71247, 79 FR 2204 (January 13, 2014). On April 3, 2014, the Commission approved the Seventh Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71851, 79 FR 19687 (April 9, 2014). On February 19, 2015, the Commission approved the Eight Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74323, 80 FR 10169 (February 25, 2015). On October 22, 2015, the Commission approved the Ninth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76244, 80 FR 66099 (October 28, 2015). On April 21, 2016, the Commission approved the Tenth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77679, 81 FR 24908 (April 27, 2016). On August 26, 2016, the Commission noticed for immediate effectiveness the Eleventh Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78703, 81 FR 60397 (September 1, 2016). On January 19, 2017, the Commission approved the Twelfth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79845, 82 FR 8551 (January 26, 2017). On April 13, 2017, the Commission approved the Thirteenth Amendment to the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80455, 82 FR 18519 (April 19, 2017).

    2 15 U.S.C 78k-1(a)(3).

    3 17 CFR 242.608.

    4See Letter from Elizabeth King, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, NYSE, to Brent Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated April 12, 2017 (“Transmittal Letter”).

    5 17 CFR 242.608.

    6Id.

    II. Description of the Plan

    Set forth in this Section II is the statement of the purpose and summary of the Fourteenth Amendment, along with the information required by Rule 608(a)(4) and (5) under the Exchange Act,7 substantially prepared and submitted by the Participants to the Commission.8

    7See 17 CFR 242.608(a)(4) and (a)(5).

    8See Transmittal Letter, supra note 4.

    A. Statement of Purpose and Summary of the Plan Amendment

    The Participants filed the Plan on April 5, 2011, to create a market-wide limit up-limit down mechanism intended to address extraordinary market volatility in NMS Stocks, as defined in Rule 600(b)(47) of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act. The Plan sets forth procedures that provide for market-wide limit up-limit down requirements that would prevent trades in individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of the specified price bands. These limit up-limit down requirements are coupled with Trading Pauses,9 as defined in Section I(Y) of the Plan, to accommodate more fundamental price moves. In particular, the Participants adopted this Plan to address the type of sudden price movements that the market experienced on the afternoon of May 6, 2010.

    9 Unless otherwise specified, the terms used herein have the same meaning as set forth in the Plan.

    As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading centers in NMS Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those operated by members of Participants, shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the limit up-limit down requirements specified in the Plan. More specifically, the single plan processor responsible for consolidation of information for an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act will be responsible for calculating and disseminating a lower price band and upper price band, as provided for in Section V of the Plan. Section VI of the Plan sets forth the limit up-limit down requirements of the Plan, and in particular, that all trading centers in NMS Stocks, including both those operated by Participants and those operated by members of Participants, shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trades at prices that are below the lower price band or above the upper price band for an NMS Stock, consistent with the Plan.

    The changes approved by the Commission in the Twelfth Amendment provide that a Trading Pause will continue until the Primary Listing Exchange has reopened trading using its established reopening procedures, and to require that trading centers not resume trading in an NMS Stock following a Trading Pause without Price Bands for such NMS Stock. In the Statement of Purpose filed with the Twelfth Amendment, the Participants stated that the changes described in the Twelfth Amendment would be implemented no later than six months after approval of that amendment. Based on the date of the approval order of the Twelfth Amendment, the Twelfth Amendment must be implemented no later than July 19, 2017. Because the SIP technology changes necessary to implement the Twelfth Amendment will not be ready by July 19, 2017, the Participants are filing this proposal to change the implementation date for the changes to the Plan set forth in the Twelfth Amendment to September 30, 2017.

    In addition, the Primary Listing Exchanges will not be ready to implement the changes to their automated reopening processes following a Trading Pause, which were made pursuant to exchange rule filings in conjunction with the Twelfth Amendment, by July 19, 2017. To provide for a standardized approach that would allow for extensions of a Trading Pause by the Primary Listing Exchange if equilibrium cannot be met to establish a Reopening Price within specified parameters (“automated reopening changes”), the Primary Listing Exchanges amended their rules for automated reopenings.10 The Primary Listing Exchanges anticipate implementing the automated reopening changes in the third quarter of 2017, assuming that the Processors have implemented their changes and each Primary Listing Exchange is able to implement their proposed rule changes simultaneously.11

    10See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 79846 (January 19, 2017), 82 FR 8548 (January 26, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-130) (Approval Order); 79884 (January 26, 2017), 82 FR 8968 (February 1, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2016-61) (Approval Order); 79876 (January 25, 2017), 82 FR 8888 (January 31, 2017) (SR-Nasdaq-2016-131) (Approval Order).

    11 In other words, the Participants expect that both the changes pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment and the Primary Listing Exchange automated reopening changes would become operative at the same time.

    Accordingly, both to provide time to support the technology changes for the Twelfth Amendment and to align the implementation date of the Twelfth Amendment with the implementation timeline for the automated reopening changes by the Primary Listing Exchanges, the Participants propose to change the implementation date for the changes in the Twelfth Amendment to no later than the end of the third quarter of 2017.12 This proposed change does not require any changes to the text of the Plan.

    12 The Participants anticipate that the Twelfth Amendment changes will be implemented in August 2017. However, to align the implementation schedule with the automated reopening changes, the Participants propose to specify the same implementation time frame as the Primary Listing Exchanges have proposed for the automated reopening changes. See supra note 10.

    The Participants believe that the proposed modification to the implementation schedule is technical and ministerial in nature because it simply extends the implementation period for the Twelfth Amendment and does not change any substantive elements of the Plan.13 The Participants believe that the proposal to extend the implementation schedule is consistent with the goal of the Twelfth Amendment, which is to reduce the potential for sequential Trading Pauses in an NMS Stock by centralizing the reopening process through the Primary Listing Exchanges, because it would align the implementation schedule for the Twelfth Amendment with the implementation schedule for the automated reopening changes. The proposed amendment would therefore protect investors and the public interest and is appropriate to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.

    13See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70273 (amending Section VIII.B of the Plan to establish a new implementation schedule for Phase II of the Plan) and 71247 (amending Section VIII.B of the Plan to establish a new implementation schedule for Phase II of the Plan), supra note 1.

    B. Governing or Constituent Documents

    The governing documents of the Processor, as defined in Section I(P) of the Plan, will not be affected by the Plan, but once the Plan is implemented, the Processor's obligations will change, as set forth in detail in the Plan.

    C. Implementation of Plan

    The initial date of the Plan operations was April 8, 2013.

    D. Development and Implementation Phases

    The Plan was initially implemented as a one-year pilot program in two Phases, consistent with Section VIII of the Plan: Phase I of Plan implementation began on April 8, 2013 and was completed on May 3, 2013. Implementation of Phase II of the Plan began on August 5, 2013 and was completed on February 24, 2014. The tenth amendment to the Plan was implemented on July 18, 2016. Pursuant to the thirteenth amendment to the Plan, the pilot period of the Plan was extended until April 16, 2018.14 Currently, the Participants must implement the Twelfth Amendment no later than July 19, 2017. Pursuant to this proposed amendment, the Participants propose to extend the time frame to implement the Twelfth Amendment to no later than the end of the third quarter of 2017.

    14See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80455 (order approving the thirteenth amendment to the Plan), supra note 1.

    E. Analysis of Impact on Competition

    The proposed Plan does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The Participants do not believe that the proposed Plan introduces terms that are unreasonably discriminatory for the purposes of Section 11A(c)(1)(D) of the Exchange Act.

    F. Written Understanding or Agreements Relating to Interpretation of, or Participation in, Plan

    The Participants have no written understandings or agreements relating to interpretation of the Plan. Section II(C) of the Plan sets forth how any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association may become a Participant.

    G. Approval of Amendment of the Plan

    Each of the Plan's Participants has executed a written amended Plan.

    H. Terms and Conditions of Access

    Section II(C) of the Plan provides that any entity registered as a national securities exchange or national securities association under the Exchange Act may become a Participant by: (1) Becoming a participant in the applicable Market Data Plans, as defined in Section I(F) of the Plan; (2) executing a copy of the Plan, as then in effect; (3) providing each then-current Participant with a copy of such executed Plan; and (4) effecting an amendment to the Plan as specified in Section III(B) of the Plan.

    I. Method of Determination and Imposition, and Amount of, Fees and Charges

    Not applicable.

    J. Method and Frequency of Processor Evaluation

    Not applicable.

    K. Dispute Resolution

    Section III(C) of the Plan provides that each Participant shall designate an individual to represent the Participant as a member of an Operating Committee. No later than the initial date of the Plan, the Operating Committee shall designate one member of the Operating Committee to act as the Chair of the Operating Committee. Any recommendation for an amendment to the Plan from the Operating Committee that receives an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the Participants, but is less than unanimous, shall be submitted to the Commission as a request for an amendment to the Plan initiated by the Commission under Rule 608.

    On April 12, 2017, the Operating Committee, duly constituted and chaired by Mr. Robert Books of Bats, met and voted unanimously to amend the Plan as set forth herein in accordance with Section III(C) of the Plan. The Plan Advisory Committee was notified in connection with the Fourteenth Amendment and was in favor.

    III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amendment is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder. 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 4-631 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 4-631.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 plan amendment that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the amendment between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the Participants' offices. 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 4-631 and should be submitted on or before May 25, 2017.

    By the Commission.

    Eduardo Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08970 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. IC-32616] Notice of Applications for Deregistration Under Section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 April 28, 2017.

    The following is a notice of applications for deregistration under section 8(f) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for the month of April 2017. A copy of each application may be obtained via the Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling (202) 551-8090. An order granting each application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by writing to the SEC's Secretary at the address below and serving the relevant applicant with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on May 23, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Commission: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hae-Sung Lee, Attorney-Adviser, at (202) 551-7345 or Chief Counsel's Office at (202) 551-6821; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8010.

    Tax Exempt Municipal Trust [File No. 811-02551] 1

    1 Applicant was previously issued a release number in the notice of applications for deregistration for March 2017 (Investment Company Act Release No. 32587). A new release number has been issued to correct an error in connection with the March 2017 notice.

    Summary: Applicant, a unit investment trust, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On September 3, 2014, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. No expenses were incurred in connection with the liquidation.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 22, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 18925 Base Camp Road, Suite 203, Monument, Colorado 80132.

    Tortoise MLP Growth Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-22776] 1

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on February 27, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 11550 Ash Street, Suite 300, Leawood, Kansas 66211.

    Brookfield Mortgage Opportunity Income Fund Inc. [File No. 811-22773] 1

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Brookfield Real Assets Income Fund Inc. and, on December 12, 2016, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $778,720 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 7, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: Brookfield Place, 250 Vesey Street, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10281.

    Brookfield High Income Fund Inc. [File No. 811-08795] 1

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Brookfield Real Assets Income Fund Inc. and, on December 12, 2016, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $386,068 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 7, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: Brookfield Place, 250 Vesey Street, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10281.

    Brookfield Total Return Fund Inc. [File No. 811-05820] 1

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Brookfield Real Assets Income Fund Inc. and, on December 12, 2016, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $604,887 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 7, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: Brookfield Place, 250 Vesey Street, 15th Floor, New York, New York 10281.

    Schroder Capital Funds (Delaware) [File No. 811-01911] 1

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc. and, on October 21, 2016, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $143,531 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser and the acquiring fund's investment adviser.

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on February 9, 2017 and amended on March 13, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 875 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10022.

    Nicholas Money Market Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-05537]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On October 12, 2016, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $31,431 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on March 31, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 700 N. Water St., Suite 1010, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.

    Guggenheim Equal Weight Enhanced Equity Income Fund [File No. 811-22584]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Guggenheim Enhanced Equity Income Fund and, on March 20, 2017, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $342,187 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant and the acquiring fund.

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 22, 2017 and amended on March 31, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

    Guggenheim Enhanced Equity Strategy Fund [File No. 811-21455]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Guggenheim Enhanced Equity Income Fund and, on March 20, 2017, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $348,511 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant and the acquiring fund.

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 22, 2017 and amended on March 31, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 227 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606.

    Palmer Square Strategic Finance Fund [File No. 811-23094]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. Applicant has never made a public offering of its securities and does not propose to make a public offering or engage in business of any kind.

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 7, 2017 and April 4, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: c/o Palmer Square Capital Management LLC, 2000 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 300, Mission Woods, Kansas 66205.

    Touchstone Tax-Free Trust [File No. 811-03174]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Touchstone Strategic Trust and, on December 16, 2016, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of $42,700 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 5, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 303 Broadway, Suite 1100, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.

    Capstone Series Fund, Inc. [File No. 811-01436]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. The applicant has transferred its assets to Steward Funds, Inc. and, on February 14, 2017, made a final distribution to its shareholders based on net asset value. Expenses of approximately $45,939 incurred in connection with the reorganization were paid by the acquiring fund.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 11, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 3700 W Sam Houston Parkway S, Suite 250, Houston, Texas 77042.

    EnTrust Multi-Strategy Fund [File No. 811-22840]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 31, 2017, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $10,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 18, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 375 Park Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York 10152.

    EnTrust Multi-Strategy Master Fund [File No. 811-22841]

    Summary: Applicant, a closed-end investment company, seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On March 31, 2017, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $10,000 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Date: The application was filed on April 18, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: 375 Park Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New York 10152.

    Advance Capital I, Inc. [File No. 811-05127]

    Summary: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company. On December 22, 2016, applicant made a liquidating distribution to its shareholders, based on net asset value. Expenses of $518,433 incurred in connection with the liquidation were paid by applicant's investment adviser.

    Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 31, 2017 and amended on April 25, 2017.

    Applicant's Address: One Towne Square, Suite 444, Southfield, Michigan 48076.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08984 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80553; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-36] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a New NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 and To List and Trade Shares of the Royce Pennsylvania ETF; Royce Premier ETF; and Royce Total Return ETF Under Proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 April 28, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 14, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the “Exchange,” “NYSE Arca,” or the “Corporation”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 15 U.S.C. 78a.

    3 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 to permit it to list and trade Managed Portfolio Shares, which are shares of actively managed exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) for which the portfolio is disclosed in accordance with standard mutual fund disclosure rules. In addition, the Exchange proposes to list and trade shares of the following under proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900: Royce Pennsylvania ETF; Royce Premier ETF; and Royce Total Return ETF. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

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

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to add new NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 for the purpose of permitting the listing and trading, or trading pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”), of Managed Portfolio Shares, which are securities issued by an actively managed open-end investment management company.4

    4 A Managed Portfolio Share is a security that represents an interest in an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1) (“1940 Act”) organized as an open-end investment company or similar entity that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by its investment adviser consistent with its investment objectives and policies. In contrast, an open-end investment company that issues Investment Company Units, listed and traded on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3) (“Index ETFs”), seeks to provide investment results that correspond generally to the price and yield performance of a specific foreign or domestic stock index, fixed income securities index or combination thereof.

    In addition to the above-mentioned proposed rule changes, the Exchange proposes to list and trade shares (“Shares”) of the following under proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900: Royce Pennsylvania ETF; Royce Premier ETF; and Royce Total Return ETF (each, a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”).

    Proposed Listing Rules

    Proposed Rule 8.900(a) provides that the Corporation will consider for trading, whether by listing or pursuant to UTP, Managed Portfolio Shares that meet the criteria of Rule 8.900.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(b) provides that Rule 8.900 is applicable only to Managed Portfolio Shares and that, except to the extent inconsistent with Rule 8.900, or unless the context otherwise requires, the rules and procedures of the Corporation's Board of Directors shall be applicable to the trading on the Corporation of such securities. Proposed Rule 8.900(b) provides further that Managed Portfolio Shares are included within the definition of “security” or “securities” as such terms are used in the Rules of the Corporation.

    Proposed Definitions

    Proposed Rule 8.900(c)(1) defines the term “Managed Portfolio Share” as a security that (a) is issued by a registered investment company (“Investment Company”) organized as an open-end management investment company or similar entity, that invests in a portfolio of securities selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser consistent with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies; and (b) when aggregated in a number of shares equal to a Redemption Unit or multiples thereof, may be redeemed at the request of an Authorized Participant (as defined in the Investment Company's Form N-1A filed with the SEC), which Authorized Participant will be paid, through its own separate confidential account established for its benefit, a portfolio of securities and/or cash with a value equal to the next determined net asset value (“NAV”).

    Proposed Rule 8.900(c)(2) defines the term “Verified Intraday Indicative Value (“VIIV”) as the estimated indicative value of a Managed Portfolio Share based on all of the issuer's holdings as of the close of business on the prior business day, priced and disseminated in one second intervals, and subject to validation by a pricing verification agent of the Investment Company that is responsible for comparing multiple independent pricing sources to establish the accuracy of the VIIV.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(c)(3) defines the term “Redemption Unit” as a specified number of Managed Portfolio Shares.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(c)(4) defines the term “Reporting Authority” in respect of a particular series of Managed Portfolio Shares as a reporting service designated by the issuer as the official source for calculating and reporting information relating to such series, including, but not limited to, the VIIV, NAV, or other information relating to the issuance, redemption or trading of Managed Portfolio Shares. A series of Managed Portfolio Shares may have more than one Reporting Authority, each having different functions.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(d) sets forth initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Portfolio Shares. Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(1)(A) provides that, for each series of Managed Portfolio Shares, the Corporation will establish a minimum number of Managed Portfolio Shares required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading on the Corporation. In addition, proposed Rule 8.900(d)(1)(B) provides that the Corporation will obtain a representation from the issuer of each series of Managed Portfolio Shares that the NAV per share for the series will be calculated daily and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time.5

    5 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.18(d)(2) (“Halts of Derivative Securities Products Listed on the NYSE Arca Marketplace)” provides that, with respect to Derivative Securities Products listed on the NYSE Arca Marketplace for which a net asset value is disseminated, if the Exchange becomes aware that the net asset value is not being disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the affected Derivative Securities Product on the NYSE Arca Marketplace until such time as the net asset value is available to all market participants.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2) provides that each series of Managed Portfolio Shares will be listed and traded subject to application of the following continued listing criteria:

    • Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(A) provides that the VIIV for Managed Portfolio Shares will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every second during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34).

    • Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(B) provides that the Corporation will maintain surveillance procedures for securities listed under Rule 8.900 and will consider the suspension of trading in, and will commence delisting proceedings under Rule 5.5(m) of, a series of Managed Portfolio Shares under any of the following circumstances:

    (i) If, following the initial twelve-month period after commencement of trading on the Exchange of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares, there are fewer than 50 beneficial holders of the series of Managed Portfolio Shares;

    (ii) if the value of the VIIV is no longer calculated or made available to all market participants at the same time;

    (iii) if the Investment Company issuing the Managed Portfolio Shares has failed to file any filings required by the Commission or if the Corporation is aware that the Investment Company is not in compliance with the conditions of any exemptive order or no-action relief granted by the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Investment Company with respect to the series of Managed Portfolio Shares;

    (iv) if any of the continued listing requirements set forth in Rule 8.900 are not continuously maintained;

    (v) if the Corporation submits a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act to permit the listing and trading of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares and any of the statements or representations regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in such rule filing are not continuously maintained; or

    (vi) if such other event shall occur or condition exists which, in the opinion of the Corporation, makes further dealings on the Corporation inadvisable.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(C) provides that, upon notification to the Corporation by the Investment Company or its agent that (i) the prices from the multiple independent pricing sources to be validated by the Investment Company's pricing verification agent differ by more than 25 basis points for 60 seconds in connection with pricing of the VIIV, or (ii) that the VIIV of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares is not being priced and disseminated in one-second intervals, as required, the Corporation shall halt trading in the Managed Portfolio Shares as soon as practicable. Such halt in trading shall continue until the Investment Company or its agent notifies the Corporation that the prices from the independent pricing sources no longer differ by more than 25 basis points for 60 seconds or that the VIIV is being priced and disseminated as required. The Investment Company or its agent shall be responsible for monitoring that the VIIV is being priced and disseminated as required and whether the prices to be validated from multiple independent pricing sources differ by more than 25 basis points for 60 seconds. With respect to series of Managed Portfolio Shares trading on the Corporation pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, if a temporary interruption occurs in the pricing or dissemination of the applicable Verified Intraday Indicative Value and the listing market halts trading in such series, the Corporation, upon notification by the listing market of such halt due to such temporary interruption, will halt trading in such series. In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to a series of Managed Portfolio Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in such series until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(D) provides that, upon termination of an Investment Company, the Corporation requires that Managed Portfolio Shares issued in connection with such entity be removed from Corporation listing.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(E) provides that voting rights shall be as set forth in the applicable Investment Company prospectus.

    Proposed Rule 8.900(e), which relates to limitation of Corporation liability, provides that neither the Corporation, the Reporting Authority, nor any agent of the Corporation shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions, or delays in calculating or disseminating any current portfolio value; the VIIV; the current value of the portfolio of securities required to be deposited to the open-end management investment company in connection with issuance of Managed Portfolio Shares; the amount of any dividend equivalent payment or cash distribution to holders of Managed Portfolio Shares; NAV; or other information relating to the purchase, redemption, or trading of Managed Portfolio Shares, resulting from any negligent act or omission by the Corporation, the Reporting Authority or any agent of the Corporation, or any act, condition, or cause beyond the reasonable control of the Corporation, its agent, or the Reporting Authority, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission, or delay in the reports of transactions in one or more underlying securities.

    Proposed Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that the Corporation will file separate proposals under Section 19(b) of the Act before the listing and trading of Managed Portfolio Shares. All statements or representations contained in such rule filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in such rule filing will constitute continued listing requirements. An issuer of such securities must notify the Exchange of any failure to comply with such continued listing requirements. Proposed Commentary .02 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that transactions in Managed Portfolio Shares will occur only during the Core Trading Session as specified in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a)(2).

    Proposed Commentary .03 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that the Exchange will implement written surveillance procedures for Managed Portfolio Shares.

    Proposed Commentary .04 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that Authorized Participants (as defined in the Investment Company's Form N-1A filed with the SEC) or non-Authorized Participant market makers redeeming Managed Portfolio Shares will sign an agreement with an agent (“Trusted Agent”) to establish a confidential account for the benefit of such Authorized Participant or non-Authorized Participant market maker that will receive all consideration from the issuer in a redemption. A Trusted Agent may not disclose the consideration received in a redemption except as required by law or as provided in the Investment Company's Form N-1A, as applicable

    Proposed Commentary .05 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Managed Portfolio Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, or if any Trusted Agent is registered as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser or Trusted Agent will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser or Trusted Agent and (i) personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, or (ii) the Authorized Participant or non-Authorized Participant market maker, as applicable, with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio. Personnel who make decisions on the Investment Company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio.6

    6 The Exchange will propose applicable NYSE Arca Equities listing fees for Managed Portfolio Shares in the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges via a separate proposed rule change.

    Key Features of Managed Portfolio Shares

    While funds issuing Managed Portfolio Shares will be actively-managed and, to that extent, will be similar to Managed Fund Shares, Managed Portfolio Shares differ from Managed Fund Shares in the following important respects. First, in contrast to Managed Fund Shares, which are actively-managed funds listed and traded under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 7 and for which a “Disclosed Portfolio” is required to be disseminated at least once daily,8 the portfolio for an issue of Managed Portfolio Shares will be disclosed quarterly in accordance with normal disclosure requirements otherwise applicable to open-end investment companies registered under the 1940 Act.9 Second, in connection with the redemption of shares in “Redemption Unit” size (as described below), the delivery of any portfolio securities in kind will generally be effected through a “Confidential Account” (as described below) for the benefit of the redeeming “Authorized Participant” (as described below in “Creation and Redemption of Shares”) without disclosing the identity of such securities to the Authorized Participant.

    7 The Commission has previously approved listing and trading on the Exchange of a number of issues of Managed Fund Shares under Rule 8.600. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57801 (May 8, 2008), 73 FR 27878 (May 14, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-31) (order approving Exchange listing and trading of twelve actively-managed funds of the WisdomTree Trust); 60460 (August 7, 2009), 74 FR 41468 (August 17, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-55) (order approving listing of Dent Tactical ETF); 63076 (October 12, 2010), 75 FR 63874 (October 18, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-79) (order approving Exchange listing and trading of Cambria Global Tactical ETF); 63802 (January 31, 2011), 76 FR 6503 (February 4, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-118) (order approving Exchange listing and trading of the SiM Dynamic Allocation Diversified Income ETF and SiM Dynamic Allocation Growth Income ETF). More recently, the Commission approved a proposed rule change to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78397 (July 22, 2016), 81 FR 49320 (July 27, 2016 (SR-NYSEArca-2015-110) ( amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund Shares).

    8 NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(2) defines the term “Disclosed Portfolio” as the identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by the Investment Company that will form the basis for the Investment Company's calculation of net asset value at the end of the business day. NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(i) requires that the Disclosed Portfolio will be disseminated at least once daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.

    9 A mutual fund is required to file with the Commission its complete portfolio schedules for the second and fourth fiscal quarters on Form N-CSR under the 1940 Act, and is required to file its complete portfolio schedules for the first and third fiscal quarters on Form N-Q under the 1940 Act, within 60 days of the end of the quarter. Form N-Q requires funds to file the same schedules of investments that are required in annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. These forms are available to the public on the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

    For each series of Managed Portfolio Shares, an estimated value—the VIIV—that reflects an estimated intraday value of a fund's portfolio will be disseminated. With respect to the Funds, the VIIV will be based upon all of a Fund's holdings as of the close of the prior business day and will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every second during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (normally, 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time (“E.T.”)). The dissemination of the VIIV will allow investors to determine the estimated intra-day value of the underlying portfolio of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares on a daily basis and will provide a close estimate of that value throughout the trading day. The VIIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of the NAV per Share of each Fund because the VIIV may not be calculated in the same manner as the NAV, which will be computed once a day, generally at the end of the business day. Unlike the VIIV, which will be based on consolidated midpoint of the bid ask spread, the NAV per Share will be based on the closing price on the primary market for each portfolio security. If there is no closing price for a particular portfolio security, such as when it the [sic] subject of a trading halt, a Fund will use fair value pricing. That fair value pricing will be carried over to the next day's VIIV until the first trade in that stock is reported unless the “Adviser” (defined below) deems a particular portfolio security to be illiquid and/or the available ongoing pricing information unlikely to be reliable. In such case, that fact will be immediately disclosed on each Fund's Web site, including the identity and weighting of that security in a Fund's portfolio, and the impact of that security on VIIV calculation, including the fair value price for that security being used for the calculation of that day's VIIV.

    The Exchange, after consulting with various Lead Market Makers that trade exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) on the Exchange, believes that market makers will be able to make efficient and liquid markets priced near the VIIV as long as a VIIV is disseminated every second, market makers have knowledge of a Fund's means of achieving its investment objective, and market makers are permitted to engage in “Bona Fide Arbitrage,” as described below. The Exchange believes that market makers will employ Bona Fide Arbitrage in addition to risk-management techniques such as “statistical arbitrage,” which is currently used throughout the financial services industry, to make efficient markets in exchange-traded products.10 This ability should permit market makers to make efficient markets in an issue of Managed Portfolio Shares without precise knowledge of a Fund's underlying portfolio.11

    10 Statistical arbitrage enables a trader to construct an accurate proxy for another instrument, allowing it to hedge the other instrument or buy or sell the instrument when it is cheap or expensive in relation to the proxy. Statistical analysis permits traders to discover correlations based purely on trading data without regard to other fundamental drivers. These correlations are a function of differentials, over time, between one instrument or group of instruments and one or more other instruments. Once the nature of these price deviations have been quantified, a universe of securities is searched in an effort to, in the case of a hedging strategy, minimize the differential. Once a suitable hedging proxy has been identified, a trader can minimize portfolio risk by executing the hedging basket. The trader then can monitor the performance of this hedge throughout the trade period making correction where warranted.

    11 Authorized Participants and other broker-dealers that enter into their own separate Confidential Accounts shall have enough information to ensure that they are able to comply with applicable regulatory requirements. For example, for purposes of net capital requirements, the maximum Securities Haircut applicable to the securities in a Creation Basket, as determined under Rule 15c3-1, will be disclosed daily on each Fund's Web site.

    To enable market makers to engage in Bona Fide Arbitrage, on each “Business Day” (as defined below), before commencement of trading in Shares on the Exchange, the Funds will provide to a “Trusted Agent” (as described below) of each Authorized Participant or “Non-Authorized Participant Market Maker” 12 the identities and quantities of portfolio securities that will form the basis for a Fund's calculation of NAV per Share at the end of the Business Day, as well as the names and quantities of the instruments comprising a “Creation Basket” and the estimated “Balancing Amount” (if any) (as described below), for that day. This information will permit Authorized Participants to purchase “Creation Units” through an in-kind transaction with a Fund, as described below.

    12 A Non-Authorized Participant Market Maker is a market participant that makes a market in Shares, but is not an Authorized Participant.

    In addition, Authorized Participants will be able to instruct the Trusted Agent to buy or sell portfolio securities during the day and thereby engage in Bona Fide Arbitrage throughout the trading day. For example, if an Authorized Participant believes that Shares of a Fund are trading at a price that is higher than the value of its underlying portfolio based on the VIIV, the Authorized Participant may sell Shares short and instruct the Trusted Agent to buy portfolio securities for its Confidential Account. When the market price of a Fund's Shares falls in line with the value of the portfolio, the Authorized Participant can then close out its positions in both the Shares and the portfolio securities. The Authorized Participant's purchase of the portfolio securities into its Confidential Account, combined with the sale of Shares, may also create downward pressure on the price of Shares and/or upward pressure on the price of the portfolio securities, bringing the market price of Shares and the value of a Fund's portfolio securities closer together. Similarly, an Authorized Participant could buy Shares and instruct the Trusted Agent to sell the underlying portfolio securities from its Confidential Account in an attempt to profit when a Fund's Shares are trading at a discount to its portfolio. The Authorized Participant's purchase of a Fund's Shares in the secondary market, combined with the sale of the portfolio securities from its Confidential Account, may also create upward pressure on the price of Shares and/or downward pressure on the price of portfolio securities, driving the market price of Shares and the value of a Fund's portfolio securities closer together. The Adviser represents that it understands that, other than the confidential nature of the account, this process is identical to how many Authorized Participants currently arbitrage existing traditional ETFs.

    Because other market participants can also engage in arbitrage activity without using the creation or redemption processes described above, the Confidential Account structure will be made available to any Non-Authorized Participant Market Maker that is willing to establish a Confidential Account. In that case, if a market participant believes that a Fund is overvalued relative to its underlying assets, the market participant may sell short Shares and instruct its Trusted Agent to buy portfolio securities in its Confidential Account, wait for the trading prices to move toward parity, and then close out the positions in both the Shares and the portfolio securities to realize a profit from the relative movement of their trading prices. Similarly, a market participant could buy Shares and instruct the Trusted Agent to sell the underlying portfolio securities in an attempt to profit when a Fund's Shares are trading at a discount to a Fund's underlying or reference assets. Any investor that is willing to transact through a broker-dealer that has established a Confidential Account with a Trusted Agent will have the same opportunity to engage in arbitrage activity. As discussed above, the trading of a Fund's Shares and the Fund's portfolio securities may bring the prices of a Fund's Shares and its portfolio assets closer together through market pressure. This type of arbitrage is referred to herein as “Bona Fide Arbitrage.”

    The Exchange understands that traders use statistical analysis to derive correlations between different sets of instruments to identify opportunities to buy or sell one set of instruments when it is mispriced relative to the others. For Managed Portfolio Shares, market makers, in addition to employing Bona Fide Arbitrage, may use the knowledge of a Fund's means of achieving its investment objective, as described in the applicable Fund registration statement, to construct a hedging proxy for a Fund to manage a market maker's quoting risk in connection with trading Fund Shares. Market makers can then conduct statistical arbitrage between their hedging proxy (for example, the Russell 1000 Index) and Shares of a Fund, buying and selling one against the other over the course of the trading day. They will evaluate how their proxy performed in comparison to the price of a Fund's Shares, and use that analysis as well as knowledge of risk metrics, such as volatility and turnover, to enhance their proxy calculation to make it a more efficient hedge.

    Market makers not intending to utilize Bona Fide Arbitrage have indicated to the Exchange that there will be sufficient data to run a statistical analysis which will lead to spreads being tightened substantially around the VIIV. This is similar to certain other existing exchange traded products (for example, ETFs that invest in foreign securities that do not trade during U.S. trading hours), in which spreads may be generally wider in the early days of trading and then narrow as market makers gain more confidence in their real-time hedges.

    Description of the Funds and the Trust

    The Shares of each Fund will be issued by Precidian ETFs Trust [sic] (“Trust”), a statutory trust organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.13 The investment adviser to the Trust will be Precidian Funds LLC (the “Adviser”). Foreside Fund Services, LLC (“Distributor”) will serve as the distributor of the Fund's Shares.

    13 The Trust will be registered under the 1940 Act. On April 5, 2017, the Trust filed a registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (the “1933 Act”) (15 U.S.C. 77a), and under the 1940 Act relating to the Funds (File Nos. 333-171987 and 811-22524) [sic] (the “Registration Statement”). The Trust filed an amended Application for an Order under Section 6(c) of the 1940 Act for exemptions from various provisions of the 1940 Act and rules thereunder (File No. 812-14405), dated September 21, 2015 [sic] (“Exemptive Application”). The Shares will not be listed on the Exchange until an order (“Exemptive Order”) under the 1940 Act has been issued by the Commission with respect to the Exemptive Application. Investments made by the Funds will comply with the conditions set forth in the Exemptive Order. The description of the operation of the Trust and the Funds herein is based, in part, on the Registration Statement and the Exemptive Application.

    As noted above, proposed Commentary .05 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Managed Portfolio Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, or if any Trusted Agent is registered as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser or Trusted Agent will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser or Trusted Agent and (i) personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, or (ii) the Authorized Participant or non-Authorized Participant market maker, as applicable, with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio. Personnel who make decisions on the Investment Company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio.14 In addition, proposed Commentary .05 further requires that personnel who make decisions on the open-end fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the open-end fund's portfolio. Proposed Commentary .05 to Rule 8.900 is similar to Commentary .03(a)(i) and (iii) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3); however, Commentary .05 in connection with the establishment of a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer reflects the applicable open-end fund's portfolio, not an underlying benchmark index, as is the case with index-based funds. The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer or affiliated with a broker-dealer.

    14 An investment adviser to an open-end fund is required to be registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”). As a result, the Adviser and its related personnel will be subject to the provisions of Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act relating to codes of ethics. This Rule requires investment advisers to adopt a code of ethics that reflects the fiduciary nature of the relationship to clients as well as compliance with other applicable securities laws. Accordingly, procedures designed to prevent the communication and misuse of non-public information by an investment adviser must be consistent with Rule 204A-1 under the Advisers Act. In addition, Rule 206(4)-7 under the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for an investment adviser to provide investment advice to clients unless such investment adviser has (i) adopted and implemented written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent violations, by the investment adviser and its supervised persons, of the Advisers Act and the Commission rules adopted thereunder; (ii) implemented, at a minimum, an annual review regarding the adequacy of the policies and procedures established pursuant to subparagraph (i) above and the effectiveness of their implementation; and (iii) designated an individual (who is a supervised person) responsible for administering the policies and procedures adopted under subparagraph (i) above.

    In the event (a) the Adviser or any sub-adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or becomes newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser is a registered broker-dealer, or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, it will implement a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or its broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.

    The portfolio for each Fund will consist of long and/or short positions in U.S.-listed securities and shares issued by other U.S.-listed ETFs 15 All exchange-listed equity securities in which the Funds will invest will be listed and traded on U.S. national securities exchanges.

    15 For purposes of this filing, ETFs include Investment Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Portfolio Depository Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.100); and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600). The ETFs in which a Fund will invest all will be listed and traded on national securities exchanges. While the Funds may invest in inverse ETFs, the Funds will not invest in leveraged (e.g., 2X, −2X, 3X or −3X) ETFs.

    Description of the Funds Royce Pennsylvania ETF

    The Royce Pennsylvania ETF will invest primarily in US- listed equity securities of small-cap companies with stock market capitalizations up to $3 billion that Royce & Associates, LP (“Royce”), the Fund's investment sub-adviser, believes are trading below its estimate of their current worth. The Fund may invest in other investment companies that invest in equity securities. The Fund may sell securities to, among other things, secure gains, limit losses, redeploy assets into what Royce deems to be more promising opportunities, and/or manage cash levels in the Fund's portfolio.

    Royce Premier ETF

    The Royce Premier ETF will invest in a limited number of US- listed equity securities of primarily small-cap companies with stock market capitalizations from $1 billion to $3 billion at the time of investment. The Fund may invest in other investment companies that invest in equity securities. The Fund may sell securities to, among other things, secure gains, limit losses, redeploy assets into what Royce deems to be more promising opportunities, and/or manage cash levels in the Fund's portfolio.

    Royce Total Return ETF

    The Royce Total Return ETF will invest primarily in dividend-paying US- listed securities of small-cap companies with stock market capitalizations up to $3 billion that it believes are trading below its estimate of their current worth. The Fund may invest in other investment companies that invest in equity securities. The Fund may sell securities to, among other things, secure gains, limit losses, redeploy assets into what Royce deems to be more promising opportunities, and/or manage cash levels in the Fund's portfolio.

    Other Investments

    While each Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest primarily in U.S.-listed securities, as described above, each Fund may invest its remaining assets in other securities and financial instruments, as described below.

    According to the Registration Statement, each Fund may enter into repurchase agreements.

    It will be the policy of the Trust to enter into repurchase agreements only with recognized securities dealers, banks and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, a securities clearing agency registered with the Commission.

    Each Fund may invest up to 5% of its total assets in warrants, rights and options.

    Each Fund may invest a portion of its assets in cash or cash equivalents.16

    16 For purposes of this filing, cash equivalents include short-term instruments (instruments with maturities of less than 3 months) of the following types: (i) U.S. Government securities, including bills, notes and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest, which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities; (ii) certificates of deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan association; (iii) bankers' acceptances, which are short-term credit instruments used to finance commercial transactions; (iv) repurchase agreements and reverse repurchase agreements; (v) bank time deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of interest; (vi) commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured promissory notes; and (vii) money market funds.

    Each Fund may invest in the securities of other investment companies (including money market funds) to the extent allowed by law.

    Investment Restrictions

    Each Fund may invest up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment),17 consistent with Commission guidance. Each Fund will monitor its portfolio liquidity on an ongoing basis to determine whether, in light of current circumstances, an adequate level of liquidity is being maintained, and will consider taking appropriate steps in order to maintain adequate liquidity if, through a change in values, net assets, or other circumstances, more than 15% of a Fund's net assets are invested in illiquid assets. Illiquid assets include securities subject to contractual or other restrictions on resale and other instruments that lack readily available markets as determined in accordance with Commission staff guidance.18

    17 In reaching liquidity decisions, the Adviser may consider the following factors: The frequency of trades and quotes for the security; the number of dealers wishing to purchase or sell the security and the number of other potential purchasers; dealer undertakings to make a market in the security; and the nature of the security and the nature of the marketplace in which it trades (e.g., the time needed to dispose of the security, the method of soliciting offers and the mechanics of transfer).

    18 The Commission has stated that long-standing Commission guidelines have required open-end funds to hold no more than 15% of their net assets in illiquid securities and other illiquid assets. See Investment Company Act Release No. 28193 (March 11, 2008), 73 FR 14618 (March 18, 2008), footnote 34. See also, Investment Company Act Release No. 5847 (October 21, 1969), 35 FR 19989 (December 31, 1970) (Statement Regarding “Restricted Securities”); Investment Company Act Release No. 18612 (March 12, 1992), 57 FR 9828 (March 20, 1992) (Revisions of Guidelines to Form N-1A). A fund's portfolio security is illiquid if it cannot be disposed of in the ordinary course of business within seven days at approximately the value ascribed to it by the fund. See Investment Company Act Release No. 14983 (March 12, 1986), 51 FR 9773 (March 21, 1986) (adopting amendments to Rule 2a-7 under the 1940 Act); Investment Company Act Release No. 17452 (April 23, 1990), 55 FR 17933 (April 30, 1990) (adopting Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933). The Commission recently codified this long standing position in Rule 22e-4. See Investment Company Act Release No. 32315 (October 13, 2016), 81 FR 82142 (November 18, 2016) (adopting requirements for investment company liquidity risk management programs).

    According to the Registration Statement, each Fund will seek to qualify for treatment as a Regulated Investment Company (“RIC”) under the Internal Revenue Code.19

    19 26 U.S.C. 851.

    The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under proposed Rule 8.900. The Funds will not invest in futures, forwards or swaps.

    Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. While a Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, a Fund will not invest in leveraged (e.g., 2X, −2X, 3X or −3X) ETFs.

    The Funds will not invest in non-U.S.-listed securities.

    Creations and Redemptions of Shares

    In connection with the creation and redemption of Creation Units (defined below), the delivery or receipt of any portfolio securities in-kind will be required to be effected through a separate confidential brokerage account (i.e., a Confidential Account) with a Trusted Agent,20 which will be a bank or broker-dealer such as JP Morgan Chase, State Street Bank and Trust, or Bank of New York Mellon, for the benefit of an Authorized Participant.21 An Authorized Participant will generally be a Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) Participant that has executed a “Participant Agreement” with the Distributor with respect to the creation and redemption of Creation Units and formed a Confidential Account for its benefit in accordance with the terms of the Participant Agreement. For purposes of creations or redemptions, all transactions will be effected through the respective Authorized Participant's Confidential Account, for the benefit of the Authorized Participant without disclosing the identity of such securities to the Authorized Participant. Each Trusted Agent will be given, before the commencement of trading each Business Day (defined below), both the holdings of a Fund and their relative weightings for that day. This information will permit an Authorized Participant, or other market participant that has established a Confidential Account with a Trusted Agent, to instruct the Trusted Agent to buy and sell positions in the portfolio securities to permit Bona Fide Arbitrage, as defined above.

    20 Each Authorized Participant shall enter into its own separate Confidential Account with a Trusted Agent.

    21 In the event that a Trusted Agent is a bank, the bank will be required to have an affiliated broker-dealer to accommodate the execution of hedging transactions on behalf of the holder of a Confidential Account.

    Shares of each Fund will be issued in Creation Units of 25,000 or more Shares. The Funds will offer and sell Creation Units through the Distributor on a continuous basis at the NAV per Share next determined after receipt of an order in proper form. The NAV per Share of each Fund will be determined as of the close of regular trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) on each day that the NYSE is open. A “Business Day” is defined as any day that the Trust is open for business. The Funds will sell and redeem Creation Units only on Business Days. Applicants anticipate that the initially [sic] price of a Share will range from $20 to $30, and that the price of a Creation Unit initial [sic] will range from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000.

    In order to keep costs low and permit each Fund to be as fully invested as possible, Shares will be purchased and redeemed in Creation Units and generally on an in-kind basis. Accordingly, except where the purchase or redemption will include cash under the circumstances described in the Registration Statement, purchasers will be required to purchase Creation Units by making an in-kind deposit of specified instruments (“Deposit Instruments”), and shareholders redeeming their Shares will receive an in-kind transfer of specified instruments (“Redemption Instruments”).22 On any given Business Day, the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Deposit Instruments and the names and quantities of the instruments that constitute the Redemption Instruments will be identical, and these instruments may be referred to, in the case of either a purchase or a redemption, as the “Creation Basket.” 23

    22 The Funds must comply with the federal securities laws in accepting Deposit Instruments and satisfying redemptions with Redemption Instruments, including that the Deposit Instruments and Redemption Instruments are sold in transactions that would be exempt from registration under the 1933 Act.

    23 In determining whether a particular Fund will sell or redeem Creation Units entirely on a cash or in-kind basis, whether for a given day or a given order, the key consideration will be the benefit that would accrue to a Fund and its investors. The Adviser represents that the Funds do not currently anticipate the need to sell or redeem Creation Units entirely on a cash basis.

    As noted above, each Authorized Participant will be required to establish a Confidential Account with a Trusted Agent and transact with each Fund through that Confidential Account.24 Therefore, before the commencement of trading on each Business Day, the Trusted Agent of each Authorized Participant will be provided, on a confidential basis, with a list of the names and quantities of the instruments comprising a Creation Basket, as well as the estimated Balancing Amount (if any), for that day. The published Creation Basket will apply until a new Creation Basket is announced on the following Business Day, and there will be no intra-day changes to the Creation Basket except to correct errors in the published Creation Basket. The instruments and cash that the purchaser is required to deliver in exchange for the Creation Units it is purchasing are referred to as the “Portfolio Deposit.”

    24 The Adviser represents that transacting through a Confidential Account is similar to transacting through any broker-dealer account, except that the Trusted Agent will be bound to keep the names and weights of the portfolio securities confidential. To comply with certain recordkeeping requirements applicable to Authorized Participants, the Trusted Agent will maintain and preserve, and make available to the Commission, certain required records related to the securities held in the Confidential Account.

    Placement of Purchase Orders

    Each Fund will issue Shares through the Distributor on a continuous basis at NAV. The Exchange represents that the issuance of Shares will operate in a manner substantially similar to that of other ETFs.

    Each Fund will issue Shares only at the NAV per Share next determined after an order in proper form is received. The Trust will sell and redeem Shares on each such day and will not suspend the right of redemption or postpone the date of payment or satisfaction upon redemption for more than seven days, other than as provided by Section 22(d) of the 1940 Act.

    Shares may be purchased from a Fund by an Authorized Participant for its own account or for the benefit of a customer. The Distributor will furnish acknowledgements to those placing such orders that the orders have been accepted, but the Distributor may reject any order which is not submitted in proper form, as described in a Fund's prospectus or Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”). Purchases of Shares will be settled in-kind or cash for an amount equal to the applicable NAV per Share purchased plus applicable “Transaction Fees,” as discussed below.

    The NAV of each Fund is expected to be determined once each Business Day at a time determined by the Trust's Board of Directors (“Board”), currently anticipated to be as of the close of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. E.T.) (the “Valuation Time”). Each Fund will establish a cut-off time (“Order Cut-Off Time”) for purchase orders in proper form. To initiate a purchase of Shares, an Authorized Participant must submit to the Distributor an irrevocable order to purchase such Shares after the most recent prior Valuation Time but not later than the Order Cut-Off Time. The Order Cut-Off Time for a Fund may be its Valuation Time, or may be prior to the Valuation Time if the Board determines that an earlier Order Cut-Off Time for purchase of Shares is necessary and is in the best interests of Fund shareholders.

    All orders to purchase Creation Units must be received by the Distributor no later than the scheduled closing time of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. E.T.) in each case on the date such order is placed (“Transmittal Date”) in order for the purchaser to receive the NAV per Share determined on the Transmittal Date. In the case of custom orders, the order must be received by the Distributor, no later than 3:00 p.m. E.T., or such earlier time as may be designated by the Funds and disclosed to Authorized Participants.25 The Distributor will maintain a record of Creation Unit purchases and will send out confirmations of such purchases.26

    25 A “custom order” is any purchase or redemption of Shares made in whole or in part on a cash basis, as provided in the Registration Statement.

    26 A Trusted Agent will provide information related to creations and redemption of Creation Units to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) upon request.

    Transaction Fees

    The Trust may impose purchase or redemption transaction fees (“Transaction Fees”) in connection with the purchase or redemption of Shares from the Funds. The exact amounts of any such Transaction Fees will be determined by the Adviser. The purpose of the Transaction Fees is to protect the continuing shareholders against possible dilutive transactional expenses, including operational processing and brokerage costs, associated with establishing and liquidating portfolio positions, including short positions, in connection with the purchase and redemption of Shares.

    Purchases of Shares—Secondary Market

    Only Authorized Participants and their customers will be able to acquire Shares at NAV directly from a Fund through the Distributor. The required payment must be transferred in the manner set forth in a Fund's SAI by the specified time on the third DTC settlement day following the day it is transmitted (the “Transmittal Date”). These investors and others will also be able to purchase Shares in secondary market transactions at prevailing market prices. Each Fund will reserve the right to reject any purchase order at any time.

    Redemption

    Beneficial Owners may sell their Shares in the secondary market. Alternatively, investors that own enough Shares to constitute a Redemption Unit (currently, 25,000 Shares) or multiples thereof may redeem those Shares through the Distributor, which will act as the Trust's representative for redemption. The size of a Redemption Unit will be subject to change. Redemption orders for Redemption Units or multiples thereof must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant.

    Authorized Participant Redemption

    The Shares may be redeemed to a Fund in Redemption Unit size or multiples thereof as described below. Redemption orders of Redemption Units must be placed by or through an Authorized Participant (“AP Redemption Order”). Each Fund will establish an Order Cut-Off Time for redemption orders of Redemption Units in proper form. Redemption Units of the Fund will be redeemable at their NAV per Share next determined after receipt of a request for redemption by the Trust in the manner specified below before the Order Cut-Off Time. To initiate an AP Redemption Order, an Authorized Participant must submit to the Distributor an irrevocable order to redeem such Redemption Unit after the most recent prior Valuation Time but not later than the Order Cut-Off Time. The Order Cut-Off Time for a Fund may be its Valuation Time, or may be prior to the Valuation Time if the Board determines that an earlier Order Cut-Off Time for redemption of Redemption Units is necessary and is in the best interests of Fund shareholders.

    Consistent with the provisions of Section 22(e) of the 1940 Act and Rule 22e-2 thereunder, the right to redeem will not be suspended, nor payment upon redemption delayed, except for: (1) Any period during which the NYSE is closed other than customary weekend and holiday closings, (2) any period during which trading on the NYSE is restricted, (3) any period during which an emergency exists as a result of which disposal by a Fund of securities owned by it is not reasonably practicable or it is not reasonably practicable for a Fund to determine its NAV, and (4) for such other periods as the Commission may by order permit for the protection of shareholders.

    Redemptions will occur primarily in-kind, although redemption payments may also be made partly or wholly in cash.27 The Participant Agreement signed by each Authorized Participant will require establishment of a Confidential Account to receive distributions of securities in-kind upon redemption.28 Each Authorized Participant will be required to open a Confidential Account with a Trusted Agent in order to facilitate orderly processing of redemptions. While a Fund will generally distribute securities in-kind, the Adviser may determine from time to time that it is not in a Fund's best interests to distribute securities in-kind, but rather to sell securities and/or distribute cash. For example, the Adviser may distribute cash to facilitate orderly portfolio management in connection with rebalancing or transitioning a portfolio in line with its investment objective, or if there is substantially more creation than redemption activity during the period immediately preceding a redemption request, or as necessary or appropriate in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. In this manner, a Fund can use in-kind redemptions to reduce the unrealized capital gains that may, at times, exist in a Fund by distributing low cost lots of each security that a Fund needs to dispose of to maintain its desired portfolio exposures. Shareholders of a Fund would benefit from the in-kind redemptions through the reduction of the unrealized capital gains in a Fund that would otherwise have to be realized and, eventually, distributed to shareholders.

    27 It is anticipated that any portion of a Fund's NAV attributable to appreciated short positions will be paid in cash, as securities sold short are not susceptible to in-kind settlement. The value of other positions not susceptible to in-kind settlement may also be paid in cash.

    28 The terms of each Confidential Account will be set forth as an exhibit to the applicable Participant Agreement, which will be signed by each Authorized Participant. The terms of the Confidential Account will provide that the trust be formed under applicable state laws; the Custodian may act as Trusted Agent of the Confidential Account; and the Trusted Agent will be paid by the Authorized Participant a fee negotiated directly between the Authorized Participants and the Trusted Agent(s).

    The redemption basket will consist of the same securities for all Authorized Participants on any given day subject to the Adviser's ability to make minor adjustments to address odd lots, fractional shares, tradeable sizes or other situations.

    After receipt of a Redemption Order, a Fund's custodian (“Custodian”) will typically deliver securities to the Confidential Account on a pro rata basis (which securities are determined by the Adviser) with a value approximately equal to the value of the Shares 29 tendered for redemption at the Cut-Off time. The Custodian will make delivery of the securities by appropriate entries on its books and records transferring ownership of the securities to the Authorized Participant's Confidential Account, subject to delivery of the Shares redeemed. The Trusted Agent of the Confidential Account will in turn liquidate, hedge or otherwise manage the securities based on instructions from the Authorized Participant.30 If the Trusted Agent is instructed to sell all securities received at the close on the redemption date, the Trusted Agent will pay the liquidation proceeds net of expenses plus or minus any cash balancing amount to the Authorized Participant through DTC.31 The redemption securities that the Confidential Account receives are expected to mirror the portfolio holdings of a Fund pro rata. To the extent a Fund distributes portfolio securities through an in-kind distribution to more than one Confidential Account for the benefit of that account's Authorized Participant, each Fund expects to distribute a pro rata portion of the portfolio securities selected for distribution to each redeeming Authorized Participant.

    29 If the NAV of the Shares redeemed differs from the value of the securities delivered to the applicable Confidential Account, the Fund will pay a cash balancing amount to compensate for the difference between the value of the securities delivered and the NAV.

    30 An Authorized Participant will issue execution instructions to the Trusted Agent and be responsible for all associated profit or losses. Like a traditional ETF, the Authorized Participant has the ability to sell the basket securities at any point during normal trading hours.

    31 Under applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the Authorized Participant is expected to be deemed a “substantial owner” of the Confidential Account because it receives distributions from the Confidential Account. As a result, all income, gain or loss realized by the Confidential Account will be directly attributed to the Authorized Participant. In a redemption, the Authorized Participant will have a basis in the distributed securities equal to the fair market value at the time of the distribution and any gain or loss realized on the sale of those Shares will be taxable income to the Authorized Participant.

    If the Authorized Participant would receive a security that it is restricted from receiving, a Fund will deliver cash equal to the value of that security.

    To address odd lots, fractional shares, tradeable sizes or other situations where dividing securities is not practical or possible, the Adviser may make minor adjustments to the pro rata portion of portfolio securities selected for distribution to each redeeming Authorized Participant on such Business Day.

    The Trust will accept a Redemption Order in proper form. A Redemption Order is subject to acceptance by the Trust and must be preceded or accompanied by an irrevocable commitment to deliver the requisite number of Shares. At the time of settlement, an Authorized Participant will initiate a delivery of the Shares versus subsequent payment against the proceeds, if any, of the sale of portfolio securities distributed to the applicable Confidential Account plus or minus any cash balancing amounts, and less the expenses of liquidation.

    Net Asset Value

    The NAV per Share of a Fund will be computed by dividing the value of the net assets of a Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets less total liabilities) by the total number of Shares of a Fund outstanding, rounded to the nearest cent. Expenses and fees, including, without limitation, the management, administration and distribution fees, will be accrued daily and taken into account for purposes of determining NAV. Interest and investment income on the Trust's assets accrue daily and will be included in the Fund's total assets. The NAV per Share for a Fund will be calculated by a Fund's administrator (“Administrator”) and determined as of the close of the regular trading session on the NYSE (ordinarily 4:00 p.m., E.T.) on each day that the NYSE is open.

    Shares of exchange-listed equity securities and exchange-listed options will be valued at market value, which will generally be determined using the last reported official closing or last trading price on the exchange or market on which the securities are primarily traded at the time of valuation. Repurchase agreements will be valued based on price quotations or other equivalent indications of value provided by a third-party pricing service. Money market funds will be valued based on price quotations or other equivalent indications of value provided by a third-party pricing service. Cash equivalents will generally be valued on the basis of independent pricing services or quotes obtained from brokers and dealers. Options not listed on an exchange, rights and warrants will be valued based on price quotations or other equivalent indications of value provided by a third-party pricing service.

    When last sale prices and market quotations are not readily available, are deemed unreliable or do not reflect material events occurring between the close of local markets and the time of valuation, investments will be valued using fair value pricing as determined in good faith by the Adviser under procedures established by and under the general supervision and responsibility of the Trust's Board of Trustees. Investments that may be valued using fair value pricing include, but are not limited to: (1) Securities that are not actively traded; (2) securities of an issuer that becomes bankrupt or enters into a restructuring; and (3) securities whose trading has been halted or suspended.

    The frequency with which each Fund's investments will be valued using fair value pricing will primarily be a function of the types of securities and other assets in which the respective Fund will invest pursuant to its investment objective, strategies and limitations. If the Funds invest in open-end management investment companies registered under the 1940 Act (other than ETFs), they may rely on the NAVs of those companies to value the shares they hold of them.

    Valuing the Funds' investments using fair value pricing involves the consideration of a number of subjective factors and thus the prices for those investments may differ from current market valuations. Accordingly, fair value pricing could result in a difference between the prices used to calculate NAV and the prices used to determine a Fund's VIIV, which could result in the market prices for Shares deviating from NAV. In cases where the fair value price of the security is materially different from the pricing data provided by the independent pricing sources and the Adviser determined that the ongoing pricing information is not likely to be reliable, the fair value will be used for calculation of the VIIV, and a Fund's Custodian will be instructed to disclose the identity and weight of the fair valued securities, as well as the fair value price being used for the security.

    Availability of Information

    The Funds' Web site (www.precidianfunds.com), which will be publicly available prior to the public offering of Shares, will include a form of the prospectus for each Fund that may be downloaded. The Funds' Web site will include additional quantitative information updated on a daily basis, including, for each Fund, (1) daily trading volume, the prior Business Day's reported closing price, NAV and mid-point of the bid/ask spread at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid/Ask Price”),32 and a calculation of the premium and discount of the Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, and (2) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid/Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. The Web site and information will be publicly available at no charge.

    32 The Bid/Ask Price of a Fund will be determined using the mid-point of the highest bid and the lowest offer on the Exchange as of the time of calculation of a Fund's NAV. The records relating to Bid/Ask Prices will be retained by each Fund and its service providers.

    As noted above, a mutual fund is required to file with the Commission its complete portfolio schedules for the second and fourth fiscal quarters on Form N-CSR under the 1940 Act, and is required to file its complete portfolio schedules for the first and third fiscal quarters on Form N-Q under the 1940 Act, within 60 days of the end of the quarter. Form N-Q requires funds to file the same schedules of investments that are required in annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders. The Trust's SAI and each Fund's shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Trust. These documents and forms may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site at www.sec.gov.

    Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Updated price information for U.S. exchange-listed equity securities is available through major market data vendors or securities exchanges trading such securities. The intraday, closing and settlement prices of money market funds, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements and cash equivalents will be readily available from published or other public sources, or major market data vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson Reuters. The NAV of any investment company security investment will be readily available on the Web site of the relevant investment company and from major market data vendors. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line. In addition, the VIIV, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900(c)(3) and as described further below, will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every second during the Exchange's Core Trading Session.

    Dissemination of the Verified Intraday Indicative Value

    The VIIV, which is approximate value of each Fund's investments on a per Share basis, will be disseminated every second during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. The VIIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of NAV because the VIIV may not be calculated in the same manner as NAV, which is computed once per day.

    The Exchange will disseminate the VIIV for each Fund in one-second intervals during the Core Trading Session, through the facilities of the CTA. The VIIV is essentially an intraday NAV calculation every second during the Core Trading Session. Each Fund will adopt procedures governing the calculation of the VIIV and will bear responsibility for the accuracy of its calculation. Pursuant to those procedures, the VIIV will include all accrued income and expenses of a Fund and will assure that any extraordinary expenses, booked during the day, that would be taken into account in calculating a Fund's NAV for that day are also taken into account in calculating the VIIV. For purposes of the VIIV, securities held by a Fund will be valued throughout the day based on the mid-point between the disseminated current national best bid and offer. The Adviser represents that, by utilizing the mid-point pricing for purposes of VIIV calculation, stale prices are eliminated and more accurate representation of the real time value of the underlying securities is provided to the market. Specifically, quotations based on the mid-point of bid/ask spreads more accurately reflect current market sentiment by providing real time information on where market participants are willing to buy or sell securities at that point in time. Using quotations rather than last sale information addresses concerns regarding the staleness of pricing information of less actively traded securities. Because quotations are updated more frequently than last sale information especially for inactive securities, the VIIV will be based on more current and accurate information. The use of quotations will also dampen the impact of any momentary spikes in the price of a portfolio security.

    Each Fund will utilize two independent pricing sources to provide two independent sources of pricing information. Each Fund will also utilize a “Pricing Verification Agent” and establish a computer-based protocol that will permit the Pricing Verification Agent to continuously compare the two data streams from the independent pricing agents sources on a real time basis.33 A single VIIV will be disseminated publicly for each Fund; however, the Pricing Verification Agent will continuously compare the public VIIV against a non-public alternative intra-day indicative value to which the Pricing Verification Agent has access. If it becomes apparent that there is a material discrepancy between the two data streams, the Exchange will be notified and have the ability to halt trading in a Fund until the discrepancy is resolved. Each Fund's Board will review the procedures used to calculate the VIIV and maintain its accuracy as appropriate, but not less than annually. The specific methodology for calculating the VIIV will be disclosed on each Fund's Web site.

    33 A Fund's Custodian will provide, on a daily basis, the constituent basket file comprised of all securities plus any cash to the independent pricing agent(s) for purposes of pricing.

    Trading Halts

    With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares of the Funds.34 Trading in Shares of the Funds will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached. Trading also may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900(d)(2)(C), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Funds will be halted.

    34See NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12.

    Trading Rules

    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. Shares will trade on the NYSE Arca Marketplace only during the Core Trading Session in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34(a)(2). 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.

    The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, each Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act,35 as provided by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3. A minimum of 100,000 Shares of each Fund will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares of each Fund that the NAV per Share of each Fund will be calculated daily and will be made available to all market participants at the same time.

    35See 17 CFR 240.10A-3.

    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 FINRA on behalf of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws.36 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.

    36 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, underlying stocks, ETFs and exchange-listed options 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 such securities from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, underlying stocks, ETFs and exchange-listed options from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.37

    37 For a list of the current members of ISG, see www.isgportal.org.

    The Funds' Adviser will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the portfolio holdings of each Fund in order to facilitate the performance of the surveillances referred to above.

    In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.

    Information Bulletin

    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders in an Information Bulletin (“Bulletin”) of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Bulletin will discuss the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of Shares; (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; (4) [sic] how information regarding the VIIV is disseminated; (5) the requirement that ETP Holders deliver a prospectus to investors purchasing newly issued Shares prior to or concurrently with the confirmation of a transaction; and (6) trading information.

    In addition, the Bulletin will reference that the Funds are subject to various fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The Bulletin will discuss any exemptive, no-action, and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act. The Bulletin will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after 4:00 p.m., E.T. each trading day.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,38 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,39 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.

    38 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    39 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 8.900 is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the proposed rules relating to listing and trading of Managed Portfolio Shares provide specific initial and continued listing criteria required to be met by such securities. Proposed Rule 8.900(d) sets forth initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Managed Portfolio Shares. Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(1) provides that, for each series of Managed Portfolio Shares, the Corporation will establish a minimum number of Managed Portfolio Shares required to be outstanding at the time of commencement of trading. In addition, the Corporation will obtain a representation from the issuer of each series of Managed Portfolio Shares that the NAV per share for the series will be calculated daily and that the NAV will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2) provides that each series of Managed Portfolio Shares will be listed and traded subject to application of the specified continued listing criteria, as described above. Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(A) provides that the VIIV for Managed Portfolio Shares will be widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors every second during the Exchange's Core Trading Session. Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(B) provides that the Corporation will maintain surveillance procedures for securities listed under Rule 8.900 and will consider the suspension of trading in, and will commence delisting proceedings under Rule 5.5(m) of, a series of Managed Portfolio Shares under any of the circumstances set forth in proposed Rules 8.900(d)(2)(B)(i) through (vi), as described above, including if any of the continued listing requirements set forth in Rule 8.900 are not continuously maintained (proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(B)(iv)), and if the Corporation submits a rule filing pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act to permit the listing and trading of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares and any of the statements or representations regarding (a) the description of the portfolio or reference asset, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in such rule filing are not continuously maintained (proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(B)(v)). Proposed Rule 8.900(d)(2)(C) provides that, upon notification to the Corporation by the Investment Company or its agent that (i) the prices from the multiple independent pricing sources to be validated by the Investment Company's pricing verification agent differ by more than 25 basis points for 60 seconds in connection with pricing of the VIIV, or (ii) that the VIIV of a series of Managed Portfolio Shares is not being priced and disseminated in one-second intervals, as required, the Corporation shall halt trading in the Managed Portfolio Shares as soon as practicable. Such halt in trading shall continue until the Investment Company or its agent notifies the Corporation that the prices from the independent pricing sources no longer differ by more than 25 basis points for 60 seconds or that the VIIV is being priced and disseminated as required. Proposed Commentary .05 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900 provides that, if the investment adviser to the Investment Company issuing Managed Portfolio Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, or if any Trusted Agent is registered as a broker-dealer or is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser or Trusted Agent will erect and maintain a “fire wall” between the investment adviser or Trusted Agent and (i) personnel of the broker-dealer or broker-dealer affiliate, as applicable, or (ii) the Authorized Participant or non-Authorized Participant market maker, as applicable, with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such Investment Company portfolio. Personnel who make decisions on the Investment Company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio Personnel who make decisions on the Investment Company's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material nonpublic information regarding the applicable Investment Company portfolio.

    With respect to the proposed listing and trading of Shares of the Funds, 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 8.900. Price information for the exchange-listed equity securities held by the Funds will be available through major market data vendors or securities exchanges listing and trading such securities. All exchange-listed equity securities held by the Funds will be listed on national securities exchanges. The listing and trading of such securities is subject to rules of the exchanges on which they are listed and traded, as approved by the Commission. The Funds will primarily hold U.S.-listed securities or ETFs. A Fund's investments will be consistent with its respective investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. The Funds will not invest in non-U.S.-listed securities. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and underlying stocks and ETFs with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading such securities from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares, underlying stocks and ETFs from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. A Trusted Agent will provide information related to creations and redemption of Creation Units to FINRA upon request. The Funds' Adviser will make available daily to FINRA and the Exchange the portfolio holdings of each Fund in order to facilitate the performance of the surveillances referred to above.

    The Exchange, after consulting with various Lead Market Makers that trade ETFs on the Exchange, believes that market makers will be able to make efficient and liquid markets priced near the VIIV, market makers have knowledge of a fund's means of achieving its investment objective even without daily disclosure of a fund's underlying portfolio, and are able to engage in Bona Fide Arbitrage. The Exchange believes that market makers will employ risk-management techniques such as Bona Fide Arbitrage in addition to “statistical arbitrage,” which is currently used throughout the financial services industry, to make efficient markets in exchange traded products.40 This ability should permit market makers to make efficient markets in shares without knowledge of a fund's underlying portfolio.

    40See note 10, supra.

    The Exchange understands that traders, in addition to employing Bona Fide Arbitrage, use statistical analysis to derive correlations between different sets of instruments to identify opportunities to buy or sell one set of instruments when it is mispriced relative to the others. For Managed Portfolio Shares, market makers utilizing statistical arbitrage use the knowledge of a fund's means of achieving its investment objective, as described in the applicable fund registration statement, to construct a hedging proxy for a fund to manage a market maker's quoting risk in connection with trading fund shares. Market makers will then conduct statistical arbitrage between their hedging proxy (for example, the Russell 1000 Index) and shares of a fund, buying and selling one against the other over the course of the trading day. Eventually, at the end of each day, they will evaluate how their proxy performed in comparison to the price of a fund's shares, and use that analysis as well as knowledge of risk metrics, such as volatility and turnover, to enhance their proxy calculation to make it a more efficient hedge.

    Market makers who anticipate employing statistical arbitrage more often than Bona Fide Arbitrage, have indicated to the Exchange that, after the first few days of trading, there will be sufficient data to run a statistical analysis which will lead to spreads being tightened substantially around VIIV. This is similar to certain other existing exchange traded products (for example, ETFs that invest in foreign securities that do not trade during U.S. trading hours), in which spreads may be generally wider in the early days of trading and then narrow as market makers gain more confidence in their real-time hedges.

    The Lead Market Makers also indicated that, as with some other new exchange-traded products, spreads may be generally wider in the early days of trading and would tend to narrow as market makers gain more confidence in the accuracy of their hedges and their ability to adjust these hedges in real-time relative to the published VIIV and gain an understanding of the applicable market risk metrics such as volatility and turnover, and as natural buyers and sellers enter the market. Other relevant factors cited by Lead Market Makers were that a fund's investment objectives are clearly disclosed in the applicable prospectus, the existence of quarterly portfolio disclosure, the capacity to engage in Bona Fide Arbitrage and the ability to create shares in creation unit size.

    The Commission's concept release regarding “Actively Managed Exchange-Traded Funds” highlighted several issues that could impact the Commission's willingness to authorize the operation of an actively-managed ETF, including whether effective arbitrage of the ETF shares exists.41 The Concept Release identifies the transparency of a fund's portfolio and the liquidity of the securities in a fund's portfolio as central to effective arbitrage. With respect to the Funds, the Funds' use of U.S.-listed securities and the ability of market makers to engage in Bona Fide Arbitrage provide adequate liquidity as well as the ability to engage in riskless arbitrage. Additionally, certain existing ETFs with portfolios of foreign securities have shown their ability to trade efficiently in the secondary market at approximately their NAV even though they do not provide opportunities for riskless arbitrage transactions during much of the trading day.42 Such ETFs have been shown to have pricing characteristics very similar to ETFs that can be arbitraged in this manner. For example, index-based ETFs containing securities that trade during different trading hours than the ETF, such as ETFs that hold Asian stocks, have demonstrated efficient pricing characteristics notwithstanding the inability of market professionals to engage in “riskless arbitrage” with respect to the underlying portfolio for most, or even all, of the U.S. trading day when Asian markets are closed. Pricing for shares of such ETFs is efficient because market professionals are still able to hedge their positions with offsetting, correlated positions in derivative instruments during the entire trading day.

    41See Investment Company Act Release No. 25258 (November 8, 2001) (the “Concept Release”).

    42 The Adviser represents that the mechanics of arbitrage and hedging differ. Prior Rule 10a-1 and Regulation T under the Act both describe arbitrage as either buying and selling the same security in two different markets or buying and selling two different securities, one of which is convertible into the other. This is also known as a “riskless arbitrage” transaction in that the transaction is risk free since it generally consists of buying an asset at one price and simultaneously selling that same asset at a higher price, thereby generating a profit on the difference. Hedging, on the other hand, involves managing risk by purchasing or selling a security or instrument that will track or offset the value of another security or instrument. Arbitrage and hedging are both used to manage risk; however, they involve different trading strategies.

    The real-time dissemination of a fund's VIIV, the ability for market makers to engage is [sic] riskless arbitrage through the Bona Fide Arbitrage mechanism, together with the right of Authorized Participants to create and redeem each day at the NAV, will be sufficient for market participants to value and trade shares in a manner that will not lead to significant deviations between the shares' Bid/Ask Price and NAV.

    The pricing efficiency with respect to trading a series of Managed Portfolio Shares will generally rest on the ability of market participants to arbitrage between the shares and a fund's portfolio, in addition to the ability of market participants to assess a fund's underlying value accurately enough throughout the trading day in order to hedge positions in shares effectively. Professional traders not employing Bona Fide Arbitrage can buy shares that they perceive to be trading at a price less than that which will be available at a subsequent time, and sell shares they perceive to be trading at a price higher than that which will be available at a subsequent time. It is expected that, as part of their normal day-to-day trading activity, market makers assigned to shares by the Exchange, off-exchange market makers, firms that specialize in electronic trading, hedge funds and other professionals specializing in short-term, non-fundamental trading strategies will assume the risk of being “long” or “short” shares through such trading and will hedge such risk wholly or partly by simultaneously taking positions in correlated assets 43 or by netting the exposure against other, offsetting trading positions—much as such firms do with existing ETFs and other equities. Disclosure of a fund's investment objective and principal investment strategies in its prospectus and SAI, along with the dissemination of the VIIV every second, should permit professional investors to engage easily in this type of hedging activity.44

    43 Price correlation trading is used throughout the financial industry. It is used to discover both trading opportunities to be exploited, such as currency pairs and statistical arbitrage, as well as for risk mitigation such as dispersion trading and beta hedging. These correlations are a function of differentials, over time, between one or multiple securities pricing. Once the nature of these price deviations have been quantified, a universe of securities is searched in an effort to, in the case of a hedging strategy, minimize the differential. Once a suitable hedging basket has been identified, a trader can minimize portfolio risk by executing the hedging basket. The trader then can monitor the performance of this hedge throughout the trade period, making corrections where warranted.

    44 With respect to trading in Shares of the Funds, market participants would manage risk in a variety of ways. In addition to Bona Fide Arbitrage, it is expected that market participants will be able to determine how to trade Shares at levels approximating the VIIV without taking undue risk by gaining experience with how various market factors (e.g., general market movements, sensitivity of the VIIV to intraday movements in interest rates or commodity prices, etc.) affect VIIV, and by finding hedges for their long or short positions in Shares using instruments correlated with such factors. The Adviser expects that market participants will initially determine the VIIV's correlation to a major large capitalization equity benchmark with active derivative contracts, such as the Russell 1000 Index, and the degree of sensitivity of the VIIV to changes in that benchmark. For example, using hypothetical numbers for illustrative purposes, market participants should be able to determine quickly that price movements in the Russell 1000 Index predict movements in a Fund's VIIV 95% of the time (an acceptably high correlation) but that the VIIV generally moves approximately half as much as the Russell 1000 Index with each price movement. This information is sufficient for market participants to construct a reasonable hedge—buy or sell an amount of futures, swaps or ETFs that track the Russell 1000 equal to half the opposite exposure taken with respect to Shares. Market participants will also continuously compare the intraday performance of their hedge to a Fund's VIIV. If the intraday performance of the hedge is correlated with the VIIV to the expected degree, market participants will feel comfortable they are appropriately hedged and can rely on the VIIV as appropriately indicative of a Fund's performance.

    With respect to trading of Shares of the Funds, the ability of market participants to buy and sell Shares at prices near the VIIV is dependent upon their assessment that the VIIV is a reliable, indicative real-time value for a Fund's underlying holdings. Market participants are expected to accept the VIIV as a reliable, indicative real-time value because (1) the VIIV will be calculated and disseminated based on a Fund's actual portfolio holdings, (2) the securities in which the Funds plan to invest are generally highly liquid and actively traded and therefore generally have accurate real time pricing available, and (3) market participants will have a daily opportunity to evaluate whether the VIIV at or near the close of trading is indeed predictive of the actual NAV.

    The real-time dissemination of a Fund's VIIV, the ability for market makers to engage is [sic] riskless arbitrage through the Bona Fide Arbitrage mechanism, together with the ability of Authorized Participants to create and redeem each day at the NAV, will be crucial for market participants to value and trade Shares in a manner that will not lead to significant deviations between the Shares' Bid/Ask Price and NAV.45

    45 The statements in the Statutory Basis section of this filing relating to pricing efficiency, arbitrage, and activities of market participants, including market makers and Authorized Participants, are based on representations by the Adviser and review by the Exchange.

    In a typical index-based ETF, it is standard for Authorized Participants to know what securities must be delivered in a creation or will be received in a redemption. For Managed Portfolio Shares, however, Authorized Participants do not need to know the securities comprising the portfolio of a Fund since creations and redemptions are handled through the Confidential Account mechanism. The Adviser represents that the in-kind creations and redemptions through a Confidential Account will preserve the integrity of the active investment strategy and eliminate the potential for “free riding” or “front-running,” while still providing investors with the advantages of the ETF structure.

    The proposed rule change is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the public interest in that the Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of an issue of Managed Portfolio Shares that the NAV per share of a fund will be calculated daily and that the NAV and [sic] will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Investors can also obtain a fund's SAI, shareholder reports, and its Form N-CSR, Form N-Q and Form N-SAR. A fund's SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the applicable fund, and those documents and the Form N-CSR, Form N-Q and Form N-SAR may be viewed on-screen or downloaded from the Commission's Web site. In addition, with respect to the Funds, a large amount of information will be publicly available regarding the Funds and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares will be available via the CTA high-speed line. Information regarding the intra-day value of the Shares of a Fund, which is the VIIV as defined in proposed NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900(c)(3), will be widely disseminated every second throughout the Exchange's Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors. The Web site for the Funds will include a form of the prospectus for the Funds that may be downloaded, and additional data relating to NAV and other applicable quantitative information, updated on a daily basis. Moreover, 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. Trading in Shares of a Fund will be halted if the circuit breaker parameters in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.12 have been reached or because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. Trading in the Shares will be subject to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.900(d)(2)(C), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Funds will be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to the VIIV, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares. The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under proposed Rule 8.900. The Funds will not invest in futures, forwards or swaps. Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment objective and will not be used to enhance leverage. While a Fund may invest in inverse ETFs, a Fund will not invest in leveraged (e.g., 2X, −2X, 3X or −3X) ETFs. The Funds will not invest in non-U.S. listed securities.

    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 actively-managed 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 comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the VIIV 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 believes the proposed rule change would permit listing and trading of another type of actively-managed ETF that has characteristics different from existing actively-managed and index ETFs, and would introduce additional competition among various ETF products to the benefit of investors.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or

    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be 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-NYSEArca-2017-36 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-NYSEArca-2017-36. 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-NYSEArca-2017-36 and should be submitted on or before May 25, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.46

    46 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08980 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80555; File No. SR-OCC-2017-004] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Concerning Enhancements to OCC's Stock Loan Programs April 28, 2017.

    On February 28, 2017, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change SR-OCC-2017-004 pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder.2 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 14, 2017.3 The Commission did not receive any comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80323 (March 8, 2017), 82 FR 13690 (March 14, 2017) (File No. SR-OCC-2017-004) (“Notice”).

    I. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    OCC operates two Stock Loan Programs—the Hedge Program and Market Loan Program—in which a participating clearing member can lend an agreed-upon number of shares of eligible stock 4 to another clearing member in exchange for an agreed-upon value of U.S. dollar cash collateral and then novate the loan to OCC for clearing.5 The Hedge Program permits clearing members to bilaterally execute stock loans and negotiate collateralization and other terms before submitting such stock loans to OCC for novation and clearing.6 The Market Loan Program is operationally similar to the Hedge Program, but it permits clearing members to execute stock loans through a multilateral loan market.7 In each case, upon completion of the novation process, OCC, in its capacity as a central counterparty, guarantees return of (i) loaned stock, or that stock's value, to the lending clearing member, and (ii) the value of cash collateral to the borrowing clearing member.8 In addition, OCC makes mark-to-market margin payments on a daily basis to ensure stock loans remain fully collateralized.

    4See OCC Rules 2202 and 2202A (providing that stock loans under the Hedge Program and the Market Loan Program, respectively, must effect transfer only of “Eligible Stock,” as defined in Article I of OCC's By-laws). OCC permits clearing members to execute stock loans involving 6,191 eligible securities as March 29, 2017, available at https://www.theocc.com/webapps/stock loan-eligible-securities.

    5 The Hedge Program is governed by Article XXI of OCC's By-Laws and Chapter XXII of OCC's Rules. The Market Loan Program is governed by Article XXIA of OCC's By-Laws and Chapter XXIIA of OCC's Rules. The Commission understands that OCC cleared approximately 10-15% of the overall U.S.-equities stock loan market through the two programs, as of November 2015.

    6 The Commission understands that the Hedge Program accounts for approximately 95% of cleared stock loan volume at OCC, as of November 2015.

    7 Automated Equity Finance Markets, Inc. is the sole loan market through which clearing members can execute stock loans in the Market Loan Program.

    8See OCC Rules 2202(b) and 2202A(b).

    OCC proposes a number of changes to the Stock Loan Programs and its Rules governing those Programs.9 First, to improve trade certainty and transparency concerning clearing member exposures, OCC proposes amendments to its rules governing the Stock Loan Programs to do the following: (1) Require clearing members to have policies and procedures to reconcile stock loan positions each business day; (2) state explicitly that the controlling record for stock loan positions for margin and other purposes is OCC's “golden” record; and (3) provide that stock loan positions remain in effect until OCC's records reflect stock loan terminations. Second, to mitigate risks that may arise in the event of a clearing member suspension, OCC proposes amendments to its rules governing the Stock Loan Programs to do the following: (1) Provide a two-day trading window in which clearing members must execute close-out transactions, also known as “buy-in” or “sell-out” transactions; (2) provide broad authority for OCC to use reasonable prices to settle close-out transactions; and (3) permit OCC to close out and re-establish the matched-book stock loan positions of a suspended Hedge Program clearing member through termination by offset and “re-matching” with other clearing members. Each of these proposals is discussed in more detail below.

    9 For a more detailed description of the specific rule changes OCC is proposing, see Notice, supra note 3.

    A. Proposed Measures To Improve Trade Certainty and Transparency

    OCC proposes three amendments to the rules governing its Stock Loan Programs that are intended to improve trade certainty and transparency for clearing members and OCC.

    1. Daily Reconciliation of Stock Loan Positions

    Clearing members that participate in the Hedge Program and the Market Loan Program execute and terminate stock loans on a bilateral basis. Following execution or termination of stock loans, OCC requires clearing members to promptly report stock loans directly to OCC, or to facilitate such reporting to OCC through the Depository Trust Corporation (“DTC”), ensuring OCC accepts stock loans for clearing and records the novation or termination for margin and other purposes. Under the current trade-reporting process, clearing members may fail to report (or to have DTC report) stock loans to OCC in a timely manner, increasing uncertainty in the novation process and decreasing transparency with respect to OCC's stock loan positions and obligations as a central counterparty and guarantor. The current process thereby presents risk management risks both to OCC and clearing members.

    To address these risk management risks, OCC proposes to require each clearing member to have adequate policies and procedures to perform daily reconciliations of stock loan positions against OCC's records and to resolve stock loan discrepancies, if any, by 9:30 a.m. Central Time the following business day.10 These proposed rule changes, according to OCC, would improve trade certainty and transparency for clearing members participating in the Hedge Program and the Market Loan Program and thereby reduce operational and other risks for OCC and clearing members.

    10See Proposed Rule 2205 of the Hedge Program and Proposed Rule 2205A of the Market Loan Program.

    2. Controlling Records for Stock Loan Positions

    To support and supplement the proposed daily reconciliation requirements for clearing member participation in the Stock Loan Programs, OCC proposes to explicitly state in its rules that OCC's stock loan records constitute the controlling records for margin and other purposes. Specifically, the proposed rules would specify that OCC's records, which OCC refers to as the “golden copy” records, prevail in the event of a conflict with clearing member records and that clearing members must continue to perform on obligations relating to open stock loan positions identified in the golden copy records.11 The proposed rules, according to OCC, support trade certainty and transparency in the Hedge and Market Loan Programs.

    11See Proposed Articles XXI and XXIA of OCC's By-Laws.

    3. Termination Records for Stock Loan Positions

    Finally, to conform OCC's stock loan termination provisions to the proposed changes relating to controlling records described above, OCC proposes rule changes to clarify that stock loans would be considered terminated for margin and other purposes only when OCC's records reflect termination of the stock loan.12 OCC states that these conforming changes also would support trade certainty and transparency in the Stock Loan Programs by ensuring consistency among and within the different rules applicable to the Stock Loan Programs.

    12See Proposed Rule 2209 in the Hedge Program and Proposed Rule 2209A in the Market Loan Program.

    B. Proposed Measures To Mitigate Stock Loan Risks in the Event of a Clearing Member Suspension

    In addition to the proposals intended to improve trade certainty and transparency, the proposed rule change also proposes three amendments to address certain risks that may arise in the event that OCC suspends a clearing member participant in the Stock Loan Programs.

    1. Stock Loan Close-Out Timeframe in the Event of a Clearing Member Suspension

    Under current Stock Loan Program rules, OCC may seek to close out a suspended clearing member's stock loan positions by instructing non-suspended clearing member counterparties to execute close-out transactions within a reasonable period of time.13 Although non-suspended clearing members must be prepared to defend the timeliness of close-out transactions under current rules, clearing members are not required to execute close-out transactions based on OCC's instructions within a specific period of time. Accordingly, if non-suspended clearing members execute buy-in or sell-out transactions over an extended period of time following OCC's close-out instruction, OCC incurs a risk that close-out prices may vary significantly from the prices used to mark the stock loan positions to market for margin purposes. OCC's credit exposure, in part, depends on the significance of these price differences relative to the suspended clearing member's available margin resources.

    13 More specifically, Rules 2209(b) and (f) and 2211 of the Hedge Program, and Rules 2209A(b) and (c) and 2211A of the Market Loan Program require clearing members to execute close-out transactions in a “commercially reasonable manner” and to be prepared to defend the timing, prices, and costs of such transactions.

    To mitigate these risks, OCC proposes to require clearing members to execute close-out transactions within a fixed two-day trading window in the event of a clearing member suspension. More specifically, OCC proposes to require non-suspended clearing members to execute close-out transactions by the end of the business day following OCC's instruction to close out stock loans with the suspended clearing member. If a non-suspended clearing member is unable to execute the close-out transactions within that two-day timeframe, OCC itself would terminate the clearing member's relevant stock loans and effect settlement based on the market price of the underlying securities, as determined by OCC. According to OCC, the proposed changes are intended to ensure that non-suspended clearing members execute close-out transactions in a timeframe consistent with OCC's two-day liquidation assumption for stock loan margin purposes, which should reduce OCC's credit exposure from significant differences between clearing member-effectuated close-out prices and the prices used to collect mark-to-market payments from the suspended clearing member.

    2. Reasonable Prices for Stock Loan Close-Out Transactions in the Event of a Clearing Member Suspension

    Under current rules, OCC may seek to close out a suspended clearing member's stock loan positions by instructing non-suspended clearing member counterparties to execute buy-in or sell-out transactions. These close-out transactions must be executed in a “commercially reasonable manner.” 14 If a borrowing clearing member is suspended and unable to return securities under a stock loan, OCC may instruct the lending clearing member to execute a “buy-in” transaction for the number of shares in the stock loan's underlying security that would be necessary to return the lending clearing member to its position prior to entering into the stock loan with the suspended clearing member. If the lending clearing member is suspended and unable to return the value of collateral, OCC similarly may instruct the borrowing clearing member to execute a “sell-out” transaction for the number of shares in the underlying security that would be necessary to return the borrowing clearing member to its position prior to entering into the stock loan. In each case, the non-suspended clearing member's stock loan position is terminated and settled based on the price reported for the close-out transaction.

    14Id.

    To incentivize “reasonable” pricing of close-out transactions in the event of a clearing member suspension, OCC proposes to provide itself authority to withdraw from a clearing member's account the value of any difference between clearing member-reported prices and “reasonable” close-out transaction prices, as determined by OCC based on an assessment of market conditions at the time of execution.15 This proposed price-substitution authority, according to OCC, would incentivize non-suspended clearing members to execute and report close-out transactions in a commercially reasonable manner.16

    15See Proposed Rule 2211. The proposal provides that a clearing member may demonstrate that a close-out transaction was executed at a “reasonable” price by providing evidence that the transaction fell within the underlying stock's trading range on the date of execution. Id. To the extent a clearing member impacts the market price of an underlying security through close-out transactions, OCC, in its discretion, may consider such impact in its assessment of market conditions at the time of execution.

    16 If the close-out transaction is not executed within the two-day period provided in Proposed Rule 2212, however, the stock loan would be terminated and settled based on OCC's marking price at the end of the period.

    3. Re-Matching in the Event of a Hedge Clearing Member Suspension

    Under OCC's current rules, in the event of a clearing member suspension, OCC can fully unwind a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's matched-book positions 17 only if it recalls all borrowed securities from specific borrowing clearing members and returns those securities to specific lending clearing members. Under current rules, this recall-and-return process is operationally complex because the nature of these unwinds would require OCC to (i) effect transfer of significant numbers of securities to significant numbers of non-suspended clearing members; and (ii) settle an equal number of payments against final settlement prices. Moreover, during this recall-and-return process, the non-suspended clearing members may experience unexpected imbalances in their overall stock loan positions, resulting in increased margin requirements or price risks relating to re-execution of the stock loans in a potentially distressed market.18

    17See definition of “Matched-Book Positions” in Article I of OCC's By-laws. A clearing member that maintains a “matched book” for stock loans generally borrows no more of a specific security than it lends to other clearing members in the program. See also Notice, supra note 3 at 8.

    18 OCC's present margin methodology nets matched-book stock loan positions prior to calculating clearing member exposures. Thus, a non-suspended clearing member's margin requirements may increase on account of the temporary stock loan imbalances resulting from a clearing member suspension.

    To address these operational complexities and the potential consequences for both OCC and its clearing members, OCC proposes new rules that would permit it to terminate a suspended Hedge Clearing Member's matched-book stock loans in the Hedge Program by offset and to “re-match” the positions of the non-suspended counterparties according to priorities established by OCC's matching algorithm.19 According to OCC, re-matching stock loans pursuant to an algorithm would facilitate orderly and efficient termination and re-establishment of stock loans involving a suspended Hedge Clearing Member, thereby mitigating operational and pricing risks that may arise for non-suspended clearing members during the recall-and-return process.

    19 OCC's matching algorithm would implement priorities in OCC's Proposed Rule 2212(d), which establishes an order of operations based on the size of stock loan positions and the existence of master securities lending agreements between the non-suspended clearing members.

    II. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act 20 directs the Commission to approve a proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such organization. The Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act 21 and Rules 17Ad-22(e)(13) 22 and 17Ad-22(e)(23) 23 thereunder, as described in detail below.

    20 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).

    21 15 U.S.C. 78q-l(b)(3)(F).

    22 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).

    23 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).

    A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,24 which requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to do the following: (1) Promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions; and (2) assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes each of the proposals in OCC's proposed rule change discussed above is consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.

    24 15 U.S.C. 78q-l(b)(3)(F).

    First, the Commission believes that OCC's three proposals to improve trade certainty and transparency in the Stock Loan Programs are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions as well as assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for which it is responsible. The Commission believes that OCC's proposal to require clearing members to implement adequate policies and procedures to reconcile stock loan positions with OCC's records on a daily basis would promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions, and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds exchanged through the programs, by reducing financial and other risks to OCC and clearing members. The Commission also believes that OCC's proposal to provide explicitly in its rulebook that its stock loan records would prevail in the event of a conflict with clearing member records, and that clearing members must continue to perform on all stock loan positions reflected in OCC's records, promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assures the safeguarding of securities and funds by encouraging clearing members to understand, manage, and promptly report stock loan transactions.

    Finally, the Commission believes that OCC's proposal to provide that stock loan positions remain in effect until OCC's records reflect stock loan terminations promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions and assures the safeguarding of securities and funds exchanged through the programs by emphasizing that OCC's records supersede the records of clearing members and further encouraging clearing members to understand, manage, and promptly report stock loan transactions. The Commission therefore finds these specific proposals are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for which it is responsible as guarantor in the Stock Loan Programs.

    Second, the Commission believes that OCC's three proposals to mitigate certain risks in the event of a clearing member suspension are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for which it is responsible. The proposal to provide a two-day trading window in which clearing members must execute close-out transactions, or opt for mandatory settlement, is consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds by requiring non-suspended clearing members to complete close-out transactions in a timeframe that is consistent with OCC's liquidation assumptions. The proposed alignment of the close-out period with OCC's liquidation assumptions mitigates OCC's credit risks by reducing the risk that close-out prices vary too significantly from the prices used to mark the suspended clearing member's stock loans to market. OCC's proposed price-substitution authority also promotes the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of stock loan transactions and assures the safeguarding of securities and funds under the programs by further encouraging non-suspended clearing members to execute close-out transactions in a commercially reasonable manner, thereby reducing financial risk to OCC.

    Finally, the proposed rule changes in the Hedge Program to permit OCC to terminate and re-establish a suspended clearing member's positions through offset and “re-match” promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities and funds by facilitating orderly and efficient termination and re-establishment of stock loans involving a suspended clearing member, which mitigates operational and pricing risks that may arise for OCC and clearing members during the recall-and-return process. The Commission therefore finds that these aspects of the proposal are consistent with promoting prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for which it is responsible.

    Based on the conclusions discussed above, the Commission finds that OCC's proposed rule changes are consistent with promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in OCC's custody or control, or for which it is responsible as a guarantor in the Stock Loan Programs. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposals are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.25

    25 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).

    B. Consistency With Rules 17Ad-22(e)(13) and (e)(23) of the Act

    The Commission finds that OCC's proposals are consistent with Rules (e)(13) and (e)(23) under the Act.26 Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act requires each covered clearing agency to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, ensure it has the authority and operational capacity to take timely action to contain losses and continue to meet its obligations in the event of a clearing member default.27 More generally, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act requires covered clearing agencies to establish, implement, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to, among other things, provide for the public disclosure of all relevant rules and material procedures, including key aspects of default rules and procedures.28

    26 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13), and 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).

    27 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(13).

    28 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(23).

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes relating to clearing member suspension are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act. By proposing a fixed trading window in which clearing members must either execute close-out transactions relating to a clearing member suspension or opt for OCC-mandated settlements, OCC is seeking new authority that the Commission believes will better ensure that OCC can take timely actions to contain suspension-related losses and continue to meet stock loan-related obligations in the Stock Loan Programs. The Commission further believes that the proposed authority permitting OCC to withdraw the value of any difference between the clearing member-reported prices and OCC-determined close-out prices likewise better ensures that OCC can contain suspension-related losses, as clearing members would be further incentivized to execute timely close-out transactions at market prices. Finally, the Commission believes that the proposal relating to re-matching-in-suspension better ensures that OCC has authority and operational capacity to contain losses and meet obligations to clearing members in the Hedge Program, in particular through new rules and mechanisms that reduce the operational, credit, and re-execution risks attendant to the recall-and-return process. The Commission therefore believes OCC's proposal is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(13) under the Act.

    The Commission also believes that OCC's proposals are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act. Each aspect of OCC's proposed rule change is proposed to be disclosed publicly in OCC's rules governing the Stock Loan Programs, including the key suspension-related aspects of its rules providing for close-out transaction timeframes, new price-substitution authority, and termination and re-matching-in-suspension. The Commission therefore believes that OCC's proposal is consistent with Rules 17Ad-22(e)(23) under the Act.

    III. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed change is consistent with the requirements of the Act, and in particular, with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act 29 and the rules and regulations thereunder.

    29 In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,30 that the proposed rule change (SR-OCC-2017-004) be, and it hereby is, approved.

    30 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.31

    31 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08982 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80551; File No. SR-FINRA-2017-006] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 6191 To Implement an Anonymous, Grouped Masking Methodology for Over-the-Counter Activity in Connection With Web Site Data Publication of Appendix B Data Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program April 28, 2017. I. Introduction

    On March 3, 2017, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) 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 amend FINRA Rule 6191 to implement an anonymous, grouped masking methodology for over-the-counter (“OTC”) activity in connection with Web site publication of Appendix B data pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program (“Plan” or “Pilot”).3 The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 15, 2017.4 The Commission received three comment letters on the proposed rule change.5 This order approves the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80 FR 27513 (May 13, 2015) (“Approval Order”). Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this order are defined as set forth in the Plan.

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80193 (Mar. 9, 2017), 82 FR 13901 (“Notice”).

    5See Letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission from Alisa McCoy, dated March 13, 2017 (“McCoy Letter”); Christopher W. Bok, Financial Information Forum, dated April 5, 2017 (“FIF Letter”); and Stephen John Berger, Managing Director, Government & Regulatory Policy, Citadel, dated April 7, 2017 (“Citadel Letter”).

    II. Description of the Proposal

    FINRA Rule 6191(b) (Compliance with Data Collection Requirements) implements the data collection and Web site publication requirements of the Plan. FINRA Rule 6191(b)(2)(A) describes the data collection and submission requirements for data that is required under Appendix B.I. and B.II. of the Plan. FINRA Rule 6191(b)(2)(B) provides, among other things, that FINRA will publish data collected pursuant to FINRA Rule 6191(b)(2)(A) on its Web site within 120 calendar days following month end at no charge,6 and that such publication will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.

    6 FINRA Rule 6191.12 provides that the Web site publication of Appendix B data shall commence on April 28, 2017.

    FINRA Rule 6191(b)(3)(A) describes the data collection and submission requirements for data specified under Appendix B.IV. of the Plan. FINRA Rule 6191(b)(3)(C) provides, among other things, that FINRA will publish data collected pursuant to FINRA Rule 6191(b)(3)(A) on its Web site within 120 calendar days following month end at no charge,7 and that such publication will not identify the Trading Center that generated the data.

    7Id.

    FINRA proposes new Supplementary Material .15 to FINRA Rule 6191 to implement an anonymous, grouped masking methodology for Appendix B.I., B.II. and B.IV. data (“Appendix B data”). FINRA also proposes to incorporate the OTC Trading Centers for which Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”) is the designated examining authority (“DEA”) into the anonymous, grouped masking methodology and publish OTC-wide statistics for Appendix B data on the FINRA Web site.8

    8 In connection with the instant filing, FINRA and CHX requested exemptive relief from the Plan to permit the publication on the FINRA Web site of data relating to OTC activity pursuant to Appendix B.I., B.II. and B.IV. using an anonymous, grouped masking methodology. See Letter from Marcia E. Asquith, Executive Vice President, Board and External Relations, FINRA, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated March 2, 2017. The Commission, pursuant to its authority under Rule 608(e) of Regulation NMS, has granted FINRA and CHX a limited exemption from the requirement to comply with certain provisions of the Plan as specified in the letters and noted herein. See letter from David Shillman, Associate Director, Division of Trading and Markets, Commission to Marcia E. Asquith, Executive Vice President, Board and External Relations, FINRA, dated April 28, 2017 (“SEC Exemption Letter”).

    A. Grouping Methodology

    FINRA proposes to establish ATS and non-ATS categories. Thereafter, FINRA would assign OTC Trading Centers into groups of five to twenty-five, using an undisclosed methodology to assign each Trading Center to a group.

    The Trading Center group assignments will not be published and generally will remain unchanged for the duration of the data publication period, with the exception of the entrance of a new Trading Center (i.e., new FINRA member). FINRA will assign an anonymized identifier for each group that will remain unchanged for the duration of the data publication period. The anonymized identifier will be used for all Appendix B data sets. The number of Trading Centers assigned to each group will not specifically be disclosed; however, as noted above, each group will contain between five and twenty-five market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”). In addition, for each day's statistics, the number of MPIDs in each group with activity in any Pilot Security for that day will be published.

    B. Appendix B.I. Data Aggregation Methodology

    FINRA proposes to aggregate the Appendix B.I. data by aggregating statistics within each group by Pilot Security for each trading day. The methodology used for computing the statistics at the group level will be the same methodology used to compute these statistics at the Trading Center level in the non-public version of the data (and in the public version of the exchange data).9 Specifically, FINRA would calculate group-level sums for statistics that are quantity counts 10 and use all underlying data within a group to calculate statistics requiring averages or weighted averages.11 Data will be aggregated separately for each order type and subcategory, and will not be aggregated across order types or subcategories.

    9See Tick Size Appendix B and C Statistics FAQs (available at http://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/Tick-Size-Pilot-Appendix-B-and-C-FAQ.pdf).

    10See e.g., Appendix B.I.a(7) (cumulative number of orders).

    11See e.g., Appendix B.I.a(28) (the share weighted average realized spread for executions of orders); and Appendix B.I.a(29) (the received share-weighted average percentage for shares not displayable as of order receipt). FINRA will calculate averages for all price variables and percentages.

    C. Appendix B.II. Data Aggregation Methodology

    Appendix B.II. data includes order-level statistics; thus, FINRA proposes that all individual orders be displayed for all Trading Centers within a group, with each order attributed to the group rather than the underlying Trading Center. In addition, Appendix B.II. order information would be displayed in chronological order based on time of order receipt.

    D. Appendix B.IV. Data Aggregation Methodology

    FINRA proposes to aggregate Appendix B.IV. data by aggregating statistics within each group by trading day by summing the statistics of all Market Maker activity represented within the group. The number of Market Makers would be displayed as the unique number of Market Makers 12 across all Trading Centers within the group.

    12 As provided in FINRA Rule 6191.11, FINRA will provide a count of the number of Market Makers used in the participation calculations. Thus, if a single unique Market Maker traded on multiple Trading Centers within the same masking group, for the Appendix B.IV. count of unique Market Makers on a given trading day, FINRA will count this activity as attributed to one unique Market Maker.

    III. Summary of Comment Letters

    The Commission received three comment letters expressing general support for the proposed rule change.13 One commenter praised “the significant steps taken to improve the masking methodology” for the Pilot data.14 Another commenter commended FINRA for “taking into account the feedback received from market participants and working to devise an approach that seeks to address identified confidentiality concerns while still maintaining the usefulness of the publicly available data.” 15

    13 One letter reads in its entirety “That is great idea since all of the compromise.” See McCoy Letter.

    14See FIF Letter.

    15See Citadel Letter.

    One commenter, however, expressed a continued concern related to FINRA's proposed grouping methodology.16 Specifically, this commenter believed that the proposal to break ATS and non-ATS OTC Trading Centers into groupings of five to twenty-five MPIDs may allow interested parties the opportunity to discern the identity of the Trading Center, perhaps by comparing the published data to Rule 605 reports of OTC volume data published by FINRA. This commenter also expressed concern that the disclosure of the number of active MPIDs in each group could potentially lead to the identification of broker-dealer Trading Centers. As an alternative, the commenter suggested that all OTC Trading Centers be aggregated into either a single ATS or non-ATS category.

    16See FIF Letter.

    Another commenter recommended eliminating the proposed daily publication of the number of MPIDs with activity in each group of Trading Centers.17 This commenter suggested that FINRA reconsider whether this additional information is necessary to provide a useful data set to the public because, “in practice, FINRA will thus be disclosing information regarding the number of trading centers assigned to each group.” In this commenter's view, FINRA must ensure that the additional data cannot be used to “undermine the confidentiality of FINRA's methodology for assigning trading centers to particular groups or the actual group assignments.”

    17See Citadel Letter.

    IV. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change and the comment letters, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities association.18 Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,19 which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,20 which requires that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate.

    18 In approving this rule change, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    19 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).

    20 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).

    In the Approval Order, the Commission noted that the Pilot is, by design, an objective, data-driven test that should “provide measurable data that should facilitate the ability of the Commission, the public and market participants to review and analyze the effect of tick size on the trading, liquidity and market quality of securities of smaller capitalization companies.” 21 The Commission further stated that the Plan should provide “a data-driven approach to evaluate whether certain changes to the market structure for Pilot Securities would be consistent with the Commission's mission to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly and efficient markets and facilitate capital formation.” 22 To that end, the Plan provides for the collection, submission and publication of data specified in Appendix B of the Plan. The Plan further provides that the data to be made publicly available not identify the Trading Center that generated the data. As discussed below, the Commission believes that FINRA's proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and would further the purpose of the Plan to provide measurable data.

    21See Approval Order, supra note 3.

    22Id.

    FINRA, as a Participant in the Plan, has an obligation to comply, and enforce compliance by its members, with the terms of the Plan. Rule 608(c) of Regulation NMS provides that “[e]ach self-regulatory organization shall comply with the terms of any effective national market system plan of which it is a sponsor or participant.” 23 Proposed FINRA Rule 6191, Supplementary Material .15 would establish a means to anonymize the identities of OTC Trading Centers when publishing the data set forth in Appendix B to the Plan. The Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act because it is designed to assist FINRA in meeting its regulatory obligations pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS and the Plan.

    23 17 CFR 242.608(c).

    FINRA's proposal seeks to address the provision in the Plan that individual OTC Trading Centers not be identified in the published data. FINRA proposes to create ATS and non-ATS categories and then assign OTC Trading Centers into groups of five to twenty-five. In addition, FINRA proposes to aggregate and publish data from those OTC Trading Centers for which CHX is DEA. Thereafter, FINRA would publish Appendix B data for OTC Trading Centers by group on its Web site using an anonymized identifier.

    The Commission notes that commenters had previously raised concerns about the publication of OTC Trading Centers' Appendix B data on a disaggregated basis.24 FINRA noted that it filed the proposed rule change to mitigate the confidentiality concerns of the commenters.

    24See Letters from William Hebert, Managing Director, Financial Information Forum, to Robert W. Errett, Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2016; and Adam C. Cooper, Senior Managing Director and Chief Legal Officer, Citadel Securities, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 21, 2016. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79424 (November 29, 2016), 81 FR 87603 (December 5, 2016) (Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of File No. SR-FINRA-2016-042).

    As noted above, while commenters were generally supportive of FINRA's proposal, some believe FINRA should do more to mitigate confidentiality concerns related to OTC Trading Centers' Appendix B data. These commenters suggested that FINRA eliminate the sub-groupings of ATS and non-ATS OTC Trading Centers, or the daily identification of the number of active MPIDs in each group. While these commenters broadly suggested this information might be used to identify the group to which a particular OTC Trading Center was assigned, they did not articulate why the identification of that group, if possible, could reveal proprietary information or otherwise harm the interests of the OTC Trading Center. In this regard, the Commission notes that the activity of each OTC Trading Center would be combined with that of at least four other OTC Trading Centers, and would be at least four months old.

    The Commission believes that FINRA's proposal to develop an anonymous, grouped masking methodology is reasonably designed to address concerns that the activity of individual Trading Centers might be identified. The Commission notes that the identities of individual Trading Centers within each group would not be disclosed and the activity of each Trading Center would be aggregated with the activity of four to twenty-four other Trading Centers. At the same time, the Commission believes that the maintenance of these groups, and the daily identification of the number of active MPIDs in each group, should substantially enhance the usefulness of the Pilot data for academics and others seeking to analyze it. For example, establishing smaller groups of OTC Trading Centers should increase the ability of researchers to control for group fixed effects, and thereby help isolate the impact of the Pilot so that more precise and robust analysis can be performed. Similarly, identifying daily the number of active MPIDs should increase the ability of researchers to assess the impact of the Pilot by allowing them to control for changes in the number of OTC Trading Centers in each group that are active in Pilot Securities.25

    25 The Commission also notes that FINRA will publish Appendix B data from OTC Trading Centers 120 days after the month end. This delay in publication should help support FINRA's efforts to mitigate confidentiality concerns.

    The Commission also believes that FINRA's proposal to aggregate and publish data from those OTC Trading Centers for which CHX is the DEA should help to mitigate confidentiality concerns. The Commission notes that CHX is DEA to a small number of OTC Trading Centers. Therefore, including these OTC Trading Centers in the broader anonymous data set should mitigate concerns about the disclosure of their identities.

    For the reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act. The proposal clarifies and implements certain data collection requirements set forth in the Plan.

    V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered that, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,26 that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2017-006), be and hereby is, approved.

    26 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.27

    27 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-08978 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80554; File No. SR-C2-2017-016] Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule 6.13 April 28, 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 25, 2017, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the “Exchange” or “C2”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) 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).

    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 seeks to amend Rule 6.13. The text of the proposed rule change is provided below.

    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])

    C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules Rule 6.13. Complex Order Execution

    (a)-(b) No change.

    (c) Process for Complex Order RFR Auction. Prior to routing to the COB, eligible complex orders may be subject to an automated request for responses (“RFR”) auction process.

    (1) For purposes of paragraph (c):

    (A) “COA” is the automated complex order RFR auction process.

    (B) A “COA-eligible order” means a complex order that, as determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, is eligible for a COA considering the order's [marketability (defined as a number of ticks away from the current market),] size, complex order type and complex order origin types (i.e. non-broker-dealer public customer, broker-dealers that are not Market-Makers or specialists on an options exchange, and/or Market-makers or specialists on an options exchange). Complex orders processed through a COA may be executed without consideration to prices of the same complex orders that might be available on other exchanges.

    (2) Initiation of a COA:

    (A) The System will send an RFR message to all Participants who have elected to receive RFR messages on receipt of (i) a COA-eligible order with two or more legs that is better than the same side of the Exchange spread market or (ii) a complex order with three or more legs that meets the class, size, and complex order type parameters of subparagraph (c)(1)(B) and is marketable against the Exchange spread market. Complex orders as described in subparagraph (c)(2)(A)(ii) will initiate a COA regardless of the order's routing parameters or handling instructions. Immediate or cancel orders that are not marketable against the derived net market in accordance with subparagraph (c)(2)(B) will be cancelled. The RFR message will identify the component series, the size and side of the market of the COA-eligible order and any contingencies, if applicable.

    (B) [Notwithstanding the foregoing, Participants may request on an order-by-order basis that incoming COA-eligible orders not COA (a “do-not-COA” request).] Notwithstanding subparagraph (c)(2)(A)(i), Trading Permit Holders may request on an order-by-order basis that an incoming COA-eligible order with two legs not COA (a “do-not-COA” request). Notwithstanding subparagraph (c)(2)(A)(ii), the System will reject back to a Trading Permit Holder any complex order described in that subparagraph that includes a do-not-COA request. An order initially submitted to the Exchange with a do-not-COA request may still COA after it has rested on the COB pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .02.

    (3)-(9) No change.

    . . . Interpretations and Policies:

    .01-.07 No change.

    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

    Exchange seeks to amend Rule 6.13(c) in order to hardcode the marketability parameter (i.e., the price at which a complex order may initiate a COA); amend Rule 6.13(c)(2) related to when a complex order will initiate a COA to account for risks to Market-Makers associated with the use of the Exchange's Quote Risk Monitoring (“QRM”) Mechanism; and amend Rule 6