Federal Register Vol. 82, No.88,

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 88 (May 9, 2017)

Page Range21461-21676
FR Document

82_FR_88
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
82 FR 21675 - Promoting Free Speech and Religious LibertyPDF
82 FR 21673 - National Day of Prayer, 2017PDF
82 FR 21591 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
82 FR 21543 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
82 FR 21551 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
82 FR 21506 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 21549 - Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory CommitteePDF
82 FR 21477 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northern Red Hake Accountability MeasurePDF
82 FR 21542 - 2017 Spring Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility UnionPDF
82 FR 21542 - TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for Small Manufacturers and Processors; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
82 FR 21542 - Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance-Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; INVISTA Victoria Victoria, TexasPDF
82 FR 21590 - Authority To Accept Volunteer Services From StudentsPDF
82 FR 21532 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments)PDF
82 FR 21516 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
82 FR 21523 - Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
82 FR 21568 - STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2PDF
82 FR 21495 - Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events in Sector Columbia RiverPDF
82 FR 21567 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 21498 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 10PDF
82 FR 21554 - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of MeetingPDF
82 FR 21475 - Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin IslandsPDF
82 FR 21548 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Mitigation Grant Programs/e-GrantsPDF
82 FR 21544 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
82 FR 21543 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
82 FR 21511 - Welded Line Pipe From Turkey: Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
82 FR 21512 - Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
82 FR 21521 - Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
82 FR 21509 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Tomatoes With Stems From the Republic of KoreaPDF
82 FR 21508 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi From ChilePDF
82 FR 21475 - Teacher Preparation IssuesPDF
82 FR 21502 - 2017 Rates Charged for AMS ServicesPDF
82 FR 21529 - Request for Information Regarding Disclosures for Student Financial AccountsPDF
82 FR 21533 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (Recruitment and Study Design Phase)PDF
82 FR 21590 - CALIFORNIA Disaster Number CA-00264PDF
82 FR 21590 - Resighini Rancheria Disaster #CA-00273PDF
82 FR 21555 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
82 FR 21535 - American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
82 FR 21535 - Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American Electric Reliability Corporation MeetingsPDF
82 FR 21538 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725E); Comment Request; Revision and ExtensionPDF
82 FR 21537 - CPV Fairview, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 21533 - Pennsylvania Grain Processing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 21541 - Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket AuthorizationPDF
82 FR 21536 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
82 FR 21536 - Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, and Enel Green Power North America, Inc. Alabama Power Company, and Southern Company Services, Inc., as Agent v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of ComplaintPDF
82 FR 21547 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRsPDF
82 FR 21487 - Amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rules To Reflect Changes Made by the FAST ActPDF
82 FR 21553 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 21481 - Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to DecommissioningPDF
82 FR 21472 - Technical Amendments to Form ADV and Form ADV-WPDF
82 FR 21546 - Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Migrant HealthPDF
82 FR 21509 - Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of AluminumPDF
82 FR 21543 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10338-North Georgia Bank, Watkinsville, GeorgiaPDF
82 FR 21549 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index ZonePDF
82 FR 21484 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., AirplanesPDF
82 FR 21482 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Canadair Limited) AirplanesPDF
82 FR 21469 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
82 FR 21546 - Safety and Occupational Health Study Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH or Institute)PDF
82 FR 21545 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)PDF
82 FR 21464 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream 200 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 21461 - Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
82 FR 21494 - Project KISSPDF
82 FR 21551 - Pilot Program for Bulk Submission of Claims to CopyrightPDF
82 FR 21471 - MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update; CorrectionPDF
82 FR 21587 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Permit the Listing and Trading of P.M.-Settled NASDAQ-100 Index® Options on a Pilot BasisPDF
82 FR 21585 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as the ETF Implied Liquidity FeedPDF
82 FR 21507 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
82 FR 21581 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fees at Rule 7047PDF
82 FR 21573 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF; IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF; and IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
82 FR 21634 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Related to Auctions in IEX-Listed Securities, Dissemination of Auction-Related Market Data, and Provisions Governing Trading Halts and PausesPDF
82 FR 21591 - Notice of Determinations; Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Orchestrating Elegance: Alma-Tadema and Design” ExhibitionPDF
82 FR 21534 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
82 FR 21544 - Submission for OMB Review; Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408)PDF
82 FR 21520 - Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty OrdersPDF
82 FR 21513 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative ReviewsPDF
82 FR 21550 - Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary CountriesPDF
82 FR 21594 - Excess Uranium Management: Secretarial Determination of No Adverse Impact on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment IndustriesPDF
82 FR 21467 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF

Issue

82 88 Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES 2017 Rates Charged for AMS Services, 21502-21506 2017-09350 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21506-21508 2017-09313 2017-09389 2017-09396
Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi from Chile, 21508-21509 2017-09352 Importation of Tomatoes with Stems from Republic of Korea, 21509 2017-09353 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 21545-21546 2017-09321 Safety and Occupational Health Study Section, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 21546 2017-09322 Coast Guard Coast Guard PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones: Recurring Marine Events in Sector Columbia River, 21495-21498 2017-09368 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission PROPOSED RULES Project KISS, 21494-21495 2017-09318 Copyright Office Copyright Office, Library of Congress NOTICES Pilot Program for Bulk Submission of Claims to Copyright, 21551-21553 2017-09317 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Preaward Survey Forms, 21544-21545 2017-09305 Education Department Education Department RULES Teacher Preparation Issues, 21475 2017-09351 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Evaluation of ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments), 21532 2017-09372 Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (Recruitment and Study Design Phase), 21533 2017-09348 Requests for Information: Disclosures for Student Financial Accounts, 21529-21532 2017-09349 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Excess Uranium Management: Secretarial Determination of No Adverse Impact on Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries, 21594-21631 2017-09243
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for Small Manufacturers and Processors; Reopening of Comment Period, 21542-21543 2017-09380 Exemption Reissuances; Petitions: INVISTA Victoria, Victoria, Texas; Class I Hazardous Waste Injection, 21542 2017-09379 Meetings: Ozone Transport Commission and Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union; 2017 Spring Joint Meeting, 21542 2017-09388 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 21467-21471 2017-08829 2017-09323 MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update; Correction, 21471-21472 2017-09316 Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream 200 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 21464-21467 2017-09320 Special Conditions; Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 21461-21464 2017-09319 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Canadair Limited) Airplanes, 21482-21484 2017-09324 Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes, 21484-21487 2017-09325 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation NOTICES Receiverships; Terminations: North Georgia Bank, Watkinsville, GA, 21543 2017-09327 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21543 2017-09429 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21547-21548 2017-09335 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mitigation Grant Programs and e-Grants, 21548-21549 2017-09359 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21538-21541 2017-09341 Applications: American Municipal Power, Inc., 21535-21536 2017-09343 Combined Filings, 21534-21537 2017-09306 2017-09337 Complaints: Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., Alabama Power Co., and Southern Co. Services, Inc., as Agent v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 21536 2017-09336 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: CPV Fairview, LLC, 21537 2017-09340 Pennsylvania Grain Processing, LLC, 21533-21534 2017-09339 Requests under Blanket Authorizations: Equitrans, LP, 21541-21542 2017-09338 Staff Attendances, 21535 2017-09342 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Companies, 21543-21544 2017-09357 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 21544 2017-09358 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Preaward Survey Forms, 21544-21545 2017-09305 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Council on Migrant Health, 21546-21547 2017-09329 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

NOTICES Meetings: Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee, 21549 2017-09394
Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Public Hearings: National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum;, 21509-21511 2017-09328 Interior Interior Department See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China, 21516-21520 2017-09371 Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 21523-21529 2017-09370 Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 21513-21516 2017-09301 Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Taiwan, 21512-21513 2017-09355 Silicomanganese from Ukraine, 21521-21522 2017-09354 Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China, 21520-21521 2017-09302 Welded Line Pipe from Turkey, 21511-21512 2017-09356 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries; Cancellation of Hearing, 21550-21551 2017-09300 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21551 2017-09427 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Office, Library of Congress

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Preaward Survey Forms, 21544-21545 2017-09305 National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Arts NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 21553-21554 2017-09333 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Arts

National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Amendments to Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands, 21475-21477 2017-09360 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Northern Red Hake Accountability Measure, 21477-21480 2017-09393 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 10, 21498-21501 2017-09363 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission PROPOSED RULES Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning, 21481-21482 2017-09332 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: STP Nuclear Operating Co., South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, 21568-21573 2017-09369 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Correction, 21567-21568 2017-09367 Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 21555-21567 2017-09345 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on APR1400, 21554 2017-09362 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with Index Zone, 21549-21550 2017-09326 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Day of Prayer (Proc. 9605), 21671-21674 2017-09570 EXECUTIVE ORDERS Religious Liberty; Efforts to Promote Free Speech (EO 13798), 21675-21676 2017-09574 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Form ADV and Form ADV-W: Technical Amendments, 21472-21475 2017-09331 PROPOSED RULES Investment Advisers Act Rules: Amendments to Reflect Changes Made by FAST Act:, 21487-21494 2017-09334 NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 21585-21587 2017-09314 Investors Exchange, LLC, 21634-21669 2017-09310 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 21587-21590 2017-09315 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 21581-21584 2017-09312 NYSE Arca, Inc., 21573-21581 2017-09311 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: California, 21590 2017-09347 Resighini Rancheria, 21590 2017-09346 State Department State Department NOTICES Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Orchestrating Elegance: Alma-Tadema and Design, 21591 2017-09307 Delegations of Authority: Authority to Accept Volunteer Services from Students, 21590-21591 2017-09375 Tennessee Tennessee Valley Authority NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 21591 2017-09451 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 21594-21631 2017-09243 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 21634-21669 2017-09310 Part IV Presidential Documents, 21671-21676 2017-09570 2017-09574 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 88 Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0361; Special Conditions No. 25-666-SC] Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace Inc., Model CL-600-2E25 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Bombardier Aerospace Inc. (Bombardier) Model CL-600-2E25 airplane. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Bombardier on May 9, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0361 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

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

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

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

Background

Bombardier holds type certificate no. A21EA, which provides the certification basis for the CL-600-2E25 airplane. The CL-600-2E25 is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 104 and a maximum takeoff weight of 90,000 pounds.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the CL-600-2E25 airplane. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Bombardier must show that the CL-600-2E25 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A21EA or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the CL-600-2E25 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the CL-600-2E25 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

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

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

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

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

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

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the CL-600-2E25 airplane. Should Bombardier apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Bombardier Model CL-600-2E25 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

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

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

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

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

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09319 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0364; Special Conditions No. 25-667-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace LP, Model Gulfstream 200 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comment.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the Gulfstream Aerospace LP (GALP) Model Gulfstream 200 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream Aerospace LP on May 9, 2017. We must receive your comments by June 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0364 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in most makes and models of transport category airplanes. We intend to require special conditions for certification projects involving non-rechargeable lithium battery installations to address certain safety issues until we can revise the airworthiness requirements. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of transport category airplanes will ensure regulatory consistency.

Typically, the FAA issues special conditions after receiving an application for type certificate approval of a novel or unusual design feature. However, the FAA has found that the presence of non-rechargeable lithium batteries in certification projects is not always immediately identifiable, since the battery itself may not be the focus of the project. Meanwhile, the inclusion of these batteries has become virtually ubiquitous on in-production transport category airplanes, which shows that there will be a need for these special conditions. Also, delaying the issuance of special conditions until after each design application is received could lead to costly certification delays. Therefore the FAA finds it necessary to issue special conditions applicable to these battery installations on particular makes and models of aircraft.

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published special conditions no. 25-612-SC in the Federal Register (81 FR 23573) applicable to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for the GVI airplane. Those were the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our decision to make those special conditions effective one year after publication in the Federal Register, which is April 22, 2017. In those special conditions, the FAA stated its intention to apply non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions to design changes on other makes and models applied for after this same date.

Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 requires the FAA to consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation modes other than aviation and to establish appropriate regulatory distinctions when modifying airworthiness regulations that affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. In consideration of this requirement and the overall impact on safety, the FAA does not intend to require non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions for design changes that only replace a 121.5 megahertz (MHz) emergency locator transmitter (ELT) with a 406 MHz ELT that meets Technical Standard Order C126b, or later revision, on transport airplanes operating only in Alaska. This will support our efforts of encouraging operators in Alaska to upgrade to a 406 MHz ELT. These ELTs provide significantly improved accuracy for lifesaving services to locate an accident site in Alaskan terrain. The FAA considers that the safety benefits from upgrading to a 406 MHz ELT for Alaskan operations will outweigh the battery fire risk.

Comments Invited

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

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

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

Background

Gulfstream periodically applies to amend its supplemental type certificate that installs an executive passenger cabin interior, which includes non-rechargeable lithium batteries, in the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane. The GALP Model Gulfstream 200, approved under type certificate no. A53NM, is a twin engine, transport category airplane with a passenger seating capacity of 19 and a maximum takeoff weight of 34,850 to 35,650 pounds, depending on the specific design.

The FAA is issuing these special conditions for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream. The current battery requirements in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 are inadequate for addressing an airplane with non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the change and areas affected by the change on the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane meet the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. Earlier amended regulations may not precede those listed in type certificate no. A53NM or, for amended supplemental type certificate projects, those listed in the supplemental type certificate. In addition, the certification basis includes certain special conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections that are not relevant to these special conditions.

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

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

The novel or unusual design feature is the installation of non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

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

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the recodification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. This recodification basically reworded the CAR 4b battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4). Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

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

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency locator transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Special condition no. 1 of these special conditions requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition no. 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition no. 2 requires the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions nos. 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the battery designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.

Special condition no. 4 makes it clear that the flammable fluid fire protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain an electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition no. 5 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

While special condition no. 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, special condition no. 6 addresses heat. Special condition no. 6 requires that each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery installation can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting special conditions nos. 5 and 6 may be the same, but the requirements are independent and address different hazards.

These special conditions apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those regulations remain in effect for other battery installations.

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

Applicability

These special conditions are applicable to the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane, as modified by Gulfstream. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on type certificate no. A53NM to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date.

These special conditions are not applicable to changes to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or to relocate the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. Previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, as used in this paragraph, are those installations approved for certification projects applied for on or before the effective date of these special conditions. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation. These special conditions are also not applicable to unchanged, previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations that are affected by a change in a manner that improves the safety of its installation. The FAA determined that these exclusions are in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter these design changes that improve safety.

Conclusion

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the GALP Model Gulfstream 200 airplane modified by Gulfstream.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 or § 25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

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

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

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition.

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

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 24, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09320 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9569; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-052-AD; Amendment 39-18865; AD 2017-09-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-03-12 for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. AD 2013-03-12 required revising the maintenance program to incorporate certain maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by issuance of a revision to the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) that introduces new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 13, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of June 13, 2017.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March 19, 2013 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.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-2016-9569.

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-2016-9569; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-03-12, Amendment 39-17347 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013) (“AD 2013-03-12”). AD 2013-03-12 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1621). The NPRM was prompted by the issuance of a revision to the AMM that introduced new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. The NPRM proposed to require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0067, dated April 7, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the Mystère Falcon 50 type design are included in DA Mystère Falcon 50 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by EASA.

Failure to implement these limitations or accomplish these tasks could result in an unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the airplane]. Consequently, compliance with these actions has been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

Consequently, EASA issued AD 2011-0246 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-03-12] to require accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in DA Mystère Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 Revision 21.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, DA issued revision 23 of the Mystere Falcon 50 AMM chapter 5-40 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD), which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

The ALS introduces, among others, the following changes:

—Addition of more detailed data regarding SSIP program, —Task 53-50-35-220-802 “Detailed inspection of the frame 35 upper and lower sections”, replacing Task 53-50-35-220-801, —Task 55-00-00-270-801 “Ultrasonic inspection for stress corrosion in stabilizer hinges”, replacing Task 55-00-00-250-801, and —Task 78-31-00-250-802 “Special detailed inspection (fluorescent penetrant) of thrust reverser door hinge fittings”, replacing Task 78-31-00-250-801.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD, retains the requirements of EASA AD 2011-0246, which is superseded, and requires the implementation of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the ALS.

This AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or revised maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9569.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015. This service information describes maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. 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 249 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 Maintenance program revision (retained action from AD 2013-03-12) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 $21,165 Maintenance or inspection program revision (new action) 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 85 21,165 Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-09-03 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18865; Docket No. FAA-2016-9569; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-052-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

(1) This AD replaces AD 2013-03-12, Amendment 39-17347 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013) (“AD 2013-03-12”).

(2) This AD affects AD 2010-26-05, Amendment 39-16544 (75 FR 79952, December 21, 2010) (“AD 2010-26-05”), and AD 2012-02-18, Amendment 39-16941 (77 FR 12175, February 29, 2012) (“AD-2012-02-18”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Periodic inspections.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a manufacturer revision to the airplane maintenance manual (AMM) that introduces new or more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance Program Revision, With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-03-12, with no changes. Within 30 days after March 19, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-03-12): Revise the maintenance program to incorporate all airworthiness limitations and maintenance tasks specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the applicable times specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011, or within 30 days after March 19, 2013, whichever occurs later.

(h) Retained Provision Regarding Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With New Exception

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-03-12, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: After accomplishing the revisions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used other than those specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011, unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness limitations, maintenance tasks, and associated thresholds and intervals specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015. The initial compliance times for the tasks are at the applicable times specified in Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision of the maintenance or inspection program required by this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) New Provision Regarding Alternative Actions and Intervals

After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions and intervals are approved as an AMOC in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Certain ADs

Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD terminates all requirements of AD 2010-26-05 and AD 2012-02-18 for the Dassault Aviation Model MYSTERE-FALCON 50 airplanes specified in those ADs.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0067, dated April 7, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9569.

(2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

(3) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(5) and (n)(6) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR as of June 13, 2017.

(i) Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Erratum to Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 23, dated July 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on March 19, 2013 (78 FR 9798, February 12, 2013).

(i) Section 05-40/00, Airworthiness Limitations, of Chapter 5-40, Airworthiness Limitations, of the Dassault Falcon 50/50EX Maintenance Manual, Revision 21, dated June 2011.

(ii) Reserved.

(5) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.

(6) 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.

(7) 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. 2017-08829 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-9303; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-093-AD; Amendment 39-18875; AD 2017-10-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; all Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. This AD was prompted by a determination that inspections for discrepancies of the fuselage bulkhead are necessary. This AD requires repetitive inspections for discrepancies of the fuselage bulkhead, and repair if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective June 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

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-2016-9303; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149.

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 all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; all Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on November 1, 2016 (81 FR 75757) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0096, dated May 19, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation Model FAN JET FALCON airplanes; all Model FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes; and all Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes. The MCAI states:

A detailed inspection (DET) of the fuselage bulkhead at frame (FR) 33 is established through a subset of inspection/check maintenance procedure referenced in the applicable aircraft maintenance manual (AMM), task 53-10-0-6 “MAIN FRAME—INSPECTION/CHECK”, with periodicity established in Chapter 5-10, at every C-Check. Failure to accomplish this DET could lead to deterioration of the affected structure.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to bulkhead failure, possibly resulting in a rapid depressurization of the aeroplane and consequent injury to occupants.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires repetitive DET of the bulkhead at FR33 [for discrepancies, such as buckling, deformations, cracks, loose countersinks, scratches, dents, and corrosion], and depending on findings, repair of the affected structure.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9303. Comments

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

Request To Reduce Compliance Time

The commenter, Mark Reiner, asked that the compliance time for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be reduced from 5,000 to 2,500 flight cycles. The commenter reasoned that since so many airplanes are flying around the world and accumulating numerous flight cycles, the chances of problems occurring on an airplane are greatly increased.

We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, we considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation for an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the inspections within an interval of time that corresponds to the typical scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. Further, we determined that the compliance time recommended by the manufacturer and EASA, and the time required for the rulemaking process provide an acceptable level of safety. Therefore, we have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

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

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

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 133 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $90,440, or $680 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition 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

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2017-10-01 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18875; Docket No. FAA-2016-9303; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-093-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective June 13, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

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

(1) Model FAN JET FALCON and FAN JET FALCON SERIES C, D, E, F, and G airplanes.

(2) Model MYSTERE-FALCON 20-C5, 20-D5, 20-E5, and 20-F5 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that inspections for discrepancies of the fuselage bulkhead at frame (FR) 33 are necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct discrepancies of the fuselage bulkhead; such discrepancies could result in the deterioration and subsequent failure of the bulkhead, which could result in rapid decompression of the airplane and consequent injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

Before exceeding 5,000 total flight cycles since first flight of the airplane, or within 500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for discrepancies of the fuselage bulkhead at FR 33 using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(h) Repair

If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature. Repair of an airplane as required by this paragraph does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, unless specified otherwise in the repair instructions.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-1137; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2016-0096, dated May 19, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9303.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

None.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 1, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-09323 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No. FAA-2006-24981; Amdt. Nos. 61-138A, 91-344A, and 135-134A] RIN 2120-AK63 MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update; Correction AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

The FAA is correcting a final rule published on September 7, 2016. In that rule, the FAA amended its regulations to relocate and update the content of SFAR No. 108 to the newly created subpart N of part 91 in order to improve the safety of operating the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) MU-2B series airplane. This document corrects two errors in the codified text of the final rule.

DATES:

Effective May 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Joseph Hemler, Commercial Operations Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-820, Federal Aviation Administration, 55 M Street SE., 8th floor, Washington, DC 20003-3522; telephone (202) 267-1100; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 7, 2016, the FAA published a final rule entitled, “MU-2B Series Airplane Training Requirements Update” (81 FR 61583). In that final rule, the FAA amended its regulations to relocate and update the content of SFAR No. 108 to the newly created subpart N of part 91 in order to improve the safety of operating the MHI MU-2B series airplane. The FAA relocated the training program from the SFAR No. 108 appendices to advisory material in order to allow the FAA to update policy while ensuring significant training adjustments still go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The FAA also corrected and updated several inaccurate maneuver profiles to reflect current FAA training philosophy and added new FAA procedures not previously part of the MU-2B training under SFAR No. 108. The final rule required all MU-2B training programs to meet the requirements of subpart N of part 91 and to be approved by the FAA to ensure safety is maintained.

After the final rule was published, the FAA discovered an error in the regulatory text of the rule. The FAA was also notified that the publisher of the MHI MU-2B Checklists, which were incorporated by reference in the final rule, changed on March 31, 2017. Because the publisher's contact information is codified in § 91.1721(b), the regulatory text of paragraph (b) was incorrect as of March 31, 2017. These errors, and the corresponding corrections, are as follows:

Corrections 1. Takeoff and Landing Currency Requirements in § 91.1715(a)

Section 91.1715(a) currently reads, in part, “takeoff landing currency requirements.” The FAA is adding the word “and” to correct an inadvertent omission in the regulation.

2. Publisher's Contact Information in § 91.1721(b)

The MHI MU-2B Cockpit Checklists are incorporated by reference in § 91.1721. Section 91.1721(b) contains the contact information of the company who publishes these checklists. When the final rule was published, Turbine Aircraft Services, Inc. (TAS) was contracted by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. (MHIA) to print and distribute the MU-2B Cockpit Checklists. Therefore, § 91.1721(b) currently contains TAS's contact information. The FAA was notified, however, that beginning on March 31, 2017, MHIA will be responsible for printing and distributing the MU-2B Cockpit Checklists. This correction document updates the contact information in § 91.1721(b) to reflect the new publisher.

Because these amendments are technical in nature and result in no substantive changes, the FAA finds that the notice and public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the amendments effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration corrects chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

2. Revise paragraph (a) of § 91.1715 to read as follows:
§ 91.1715 Currency requirements and flight review.

(a) The takeoff and landing currency requirements of § 61.57 of this chapter must be maintained in the Mitsubishi MU-2B series airplane. Takeoff and landings in other multiengine airplanes do not meet the takeoff and landing currency requirements for the Mitsubishi MU-2B series plane. Takeoff and landings in either the short-body or long-body Mitsubishi MU-2B model airplane may be credited toward takeoff and landing currency for both Mitsubishi MU-2B model groups.

3. In § 91.1721, revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 91.1721 Incorporation by reference.

(b) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc., 4951 Airport Parkway, Suite 530, Addison, TX 75001.

Issued under authority provided by (consult AGC) 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2017. Lirio Liu, Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-09316 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 279 [Release No. IA-4698] Technical Amendments to Form ADV and Form ADV-W AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission” or “SEC”) is making technical amendments to Form ADV under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) to reflect the enactment of a Wyoming state law regulating investment advisers. Form ADV is the form advisers use to register with the Commission and the state securities regulatory authorities. The Commission is also making similar amendments to Form ADV-W, the form advisers use to withdraw from registration with the Commission or the states.

DATES:

Effective July 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bridget D. Farrell, Senior Counsel or Melissa Roverts Harke, Senior Special Counsel at (202) 551-6787 or [email protected], Investment Adviser Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission is adopting technical amendments to Form ADV [17 CFR 279.1] and Form ADV-W [17 CFR 279.2] under the Advisers Act to correct and update what will be outdated references in those forms to the state of Wyoming due to the enactment by Wyoming of legislation regulating investment advisers, which will be effective as of July 1, 2017.1

1 Wyoming Uniform Securities Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 17-4-101, 17-4-403 through 17-4-412 (effective July 1, 2017) (“Wyoming Securities Act”).

An investment adviser must register with the Commission unless it is prohibited from registering under section 203A of the Advisers Act or relies on an exemption from registration under section 203.2 Under section 203A(a)(1) of the Advisers Act, an adviser that is regulated or required to be regulated as an investment adviser in the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business is prohibited from registering with the Commission unless the adviser has assets under management of not less than $25 million, or advises an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.3 Under section 203A(a)(2) of the Advisers Act, an investment adviser with between $25 million and $100 million of assets under management (“mid-sized adviser”) is also prohibited from registering with the Commission if that adviser is required to be registered as an investment adviser in the state in which it maintains its principal office and place of business and, if registered, would be subject to examination as an investment adviser.4 These provisions make the states the primary regulators of smaller advisers and the Commission the primary regulator of larger advisers.5 However, all investment advisers—regardless of the amount of assets they manage—must register with the Commission if their principal office and place of business is located in a state that has not enacted a statute regulating advisers.6

2 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a; 15 U.S.C. 80b-3.

3 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a)(1).

4 15 U.S.C. 80b-3a(a)(2). Section 203A(a)(2) also provides exceptions to the prohibition on Commission registration of state-registered mid-sized advisers for advisers to registered investment companies or business development companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 and advisers that would otherwise be required to register with 15 or more states.

5See Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3221 (June 22, 2011) [76 FR 42950 (July 19, 2011)].

6See Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 1633, section I (May 15, 1997) [62 FR 28112 (May 22, 1997)].

Recently, the state of Wyoming enacted a statute regulating investment advisers that will become effective July 1, 2017.7 Further, our staff has contacted the state securities authority for the state of Wyoming, the Wyoming Secretary of State Compliance Division, which has advised our staff that mid-sized advisers with a principal office and place of business in Wyoming will be required to be registered with the state and will be subject to examination. As a consequence, by operation of the Wyoming statute, as of July 1, 2017, an investment adviser with a principal office and place of business in Wyoming may not register with the Commission unless it has greater than $100 million in assets under management, advises a registered investment company, or is eligible to rely on one of the exemptions from the prohibition on registration contained in rule 203A-2.8

7 Wyoming Securities Act §§ 17-4-403-412.

8 Absent eligibility for Commission registration, these advisers are subject to the registration provisions of Wyoming law. In addition, advisers ineligible for Commission registration that have their principal office and place of business in Wyoming may be required to register in one or more other states, subject to the laws of those states.

As a result of this Wyoming statute, the Commission is making technical amendments to Form ADV as well as to Form ADV-W to reflect the addition of the state of Wyoming to the group of states with investment adviser regulation. Specifically, any adviser filing an initial Form ADV or an amendment to an existing Form ADV on or after July 1, 2017 will not be able to select Item 2.A.(3) of Form ADV, which currently indicates having a principal office and place of business in Wyoming (which does not regulate advisers) as a basis for Commission registration. Further, a checkbox for “WY” will be added to Item 2.C. of Form ADV to enable state notice filings for Commission-registered advisers. Finally, a checkbox for “WY” will also be added to section (b) of Form ADV-W, concerning withdrawals from state investment adviser registration.9 On October 1, 2017, Item 2.A.(3) will be redesignated as “Reserved.” The same change will be made to Schedule R, Section 2.A.(3) for relying advisers.10

9 Item 2.A.(3) on Form ADV will be disabled as a basis for registration in the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (“IARD”) on July 1, 2017, when the Wyoming statute becomes effective. Additionally, on that date, IARD will be programmed to accept Wyoming notice filings, and to enable withdrawal from Wyoming registration. However, IARD will not be programmed to replace the text in Item 2.A.(3) with “Reserved” or to make the amendments to Schedule R discussed in this paragraph until October 1, 2017, in order to implement those amendments concurrently with the unrelated amendments to the form adopted recently. See Form ADV and Investment Advisers Act Rules, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 4509 (Aug. 25, 2016) (“Release 4509”) [81 FR 60418 (Sept. 1, 2016)] (compliance date October 1, 2017).

10 Schedule R is a schedule to Form ADV that may be used by private fund advisers that are registered with the Commission and operate a single advisory business through multiple legal entities to file a single registration form, subject to conditions. See Release 4509.

Procedural and Other Matters

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), notice of proposed rulemaking is not required when the agency, for good cause, finds “that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 11 The Commission is adopting technical amendments to correct and eliminate what will automatically become outdated provisions in Part 1A of Form ADV and Form ADV-W as a result of legislation enacted by the state of Wyoming, which will be effective July 1, 2017. These amendments are therefore ministerial in nature. Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause that publishing the amendments for comment is unnecessary.12

11 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

12 The amendments also do not require analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”). See 5 U.S.C. 601(2) (for purposes of RFA analysis, the term “rule” generally means any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of proposed rulemaking).

We do not believe that these ministerial amendments to Forms ADV and ADV-W, to reflect the addition of Wyoming to the group of states with investment adviser regulation, make any substantive modifications to any existing collection of information requirements or impose any new substantive recordkeeping or information collection requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).13 Accordingly, we are not revising any burden and cost estimates in connection with these amendments.14

13 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. As noted in the Economic Analysis below, we recognize that approximately 35 investment advisers would likely be affected by the new Wyoming state law. Thus, while the enactment of the Wyoming state law may impact a small number of Commission-registered small and mid-sized investment advisers that have a principal office and place of business in Wyoming, we believe that the amendments adopted today do not impose substantive new burdens as they may marginally reduce the overall population of respondents and therefore will not affect the current overall burden estimates for affected forms.

14 The most recent Paperwork Reduction Act analysis for Form ADV, which is pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control No. 3235-0049), is based upon the number of registered advisers and exempt reporting advisers as of May 1, 2016.

Economic Analysis

As a result of the Wyoming statute, and its interaction with the Advisers Act and rules thereunder, small and mid-sized investment advisers who have a principal office and place of business in Wyoming, and cannot assert another basis for continuing to remain registered with the Commission, will be required to register with the Wyoming Secretary of State, deregister with the Commission, and be subject to Wyoming oversight as of July 1, 2017.15 This transition of these Commission-registered investment advisers to Wyoming oversight is a result of a Wyoming statute and therefore does not necessitate additional rule changes by the Commission, but will cause Forms ADV and ADV-W to contain outdated provisions that reflect the prior status of Wyoming investment advisers who had been able to register with the Commission before July 1, 2017. This rulemaking updates those forms accordingly. In considering the economic effects of this rulemaking, we primarily focus on any effects that changes to the forms might have on Commission-registered advisers filing Form ADV and ADV-W. However, we recognize that we are making these changes to the forms in light of the broader transition of certain Wyoming investment advisers to Wyoming oversight—a transition that will entail a set of economic effects separate from the changes to the forms—and we briefly discuss the effects of this broader transition.

15 Specifically, for small investment advisers, the impact of the transition to state oversight is the result of the interaction of the Wyoming statute with section 203A(a) and our 1997 rule, see supra note 6; for mid-sized investment advisers, it is the result of section 203A(a) as amended by Section 410 of the Dodd-Frank Act, and our 2011 rule, see supra note 5.

As of February 1, 2017, there are 40 investment advisers that selected Item 2.A.(3) of Form ADV, indicating that the adviser has a principal office and place of business in the state of Wyoming. Of these 40 investment advisers, four advisers have identified themselves as those with regulatory assets under management of $100 million or more by checking Item 2.A.(1) on Form ADV and will continue to be required to register with the Commission, regardless of the change in the statute enacted by the state of Wyoming. However, based on regulatory assets under management (Item 5.F.(2)(c) on Form ADV), there is one additional adviser with regulatory assets under management of $100 million or more that did not identify itself by Item 2.A.(1) that we therefore anticipate would remain registered with the Commission. Only one adviser currently selecting Item 2.A.(3) also selected Item 2.A.(2) on Form ADV as of February 1, 2017, indicating that it is a “mid-sized adviser” with regulatory assets under management of more than $25 million but less than $100 million; however, based on regulatory assets under management, we identified seven additional mid-sized advisers that did not select Item 2.A.(2). We anticipate these eight advisers would need to change their registrations to state registration, absent an alternative basis for remaining registered with the Commission. The remaining 27 advisers report regulatory assets under management of less than $25 million and checked only Item 2.A.(3) as a basis for registration with the Commission and would need to change their registrations to state registration absent an alternative basis for remaining registered with the Commission.

Thus, there are approximately 35 advisers that have not indicated an alternative basis for remaining registered with the Commission after the Wyoming statute becomes effective on July 1, 2017,16 and that we therefore assume will be required to register with the state of Wyoming and withdraw from registration with the Commission.17 These 35 investment advisers collectively reported $530 million in regulatory assets under management as of February 1, 2017.

16 We arrive at 35 mid-sized and small advisers by two means. First, we take the 40 Wyoming advisers and subtract the five advisers who either have checked the large-size box (Item 2.A.(1)) or who have assets under management that would seem to permit them to check Item 2.A.(1). Alternatively, we sum together the adviser who checked the mid-sized box (Item 2.A.(2)) together with firms that have assets under management that would appear to make them mid-sized (seven), as well as those that have assets under management that would seem to make them small advisers (27), none of which have checked any additional box that would constitute an alternative basis for remaining registered.

17 As these 35 small and mid-sized advisers may have an alternative basis for remaining registered with the Commission (e.g., they serve as an adviser to a registered investment company or business development company, or are a pension consultant), 35 is likely to be an upper bound; however, we assume that all 35 advisers will be required to shift for purposes of understanding the possible magnitude of the change.

The Commission has analyzed the effects of the changes to the forms as a result of the Wyoming legislation and anticipates only nominal benefits or costs, if any, to arise from the technical amendments to Form ADV and Form ADV-W to reflect the change in Wyoming law. The removal of Item 2.A.(3) from Form ADV will prevent investment advisers from improperly checking the box previously used to identify investment advisers from the state of Wyoming, making clear to such advisers that they are no longer eligible to register with the Commission on the basis of having a principal office and place of business in Wyoming. Correspondingly, amendments to Schedule R of Form ADV to remove Item 2.A.(3) from the Schedule will have effects for relying advisers subject to umbrella registration similar to the effects for advisers that do not use Schedule R but respond to Item 2.A.(3) of Form ADV. Further, Item 2.C of Form ADV will now be amended to include Wyoming check boxes for Commission-registered advisers to send notice filings to Wyoming. Finally, Form ADV-W will be revised to allow Wyoming registrants to withdraw their registration with Wyoming as necessary.

As Item 2.A.(3) would not be relevant to investment advisers without a principal office and place of business in the state of Wyoming, we do not believe that changes to the forms will impose any costs on these investment advisers to update their systems or otherwise review or understand the impact of the changes.18 While some advisers that remain registered with the Commission may need to check the notice filing box to send notice filings to Wyoming, we anticipate that the burden to check the box will be nominal, if any. The changes to the forms also do not directly impose any costs on the advisers who must change their registration as a result of the Wyoming statute. The Commission further anticipates that these technical amendments to Form ADV and Form ADV-W will have minimal, if any, effects on efficiency, competition, or capital formation because the amendments reflect only ministerial changes to Forms ADV and ADV-W.

18 To the extent that filers have fewer questions to research when completing the form, this removal of Item 2.A.(3) may reduce the costs associated with filing activities for investment advisers with a principal office and place of business in the state of Wyoming.

Separately, we recognize that approximately 35 investment advisers will be required to transition to Wyoming oversight as a self-executing result of the Wyoming statute's interaction with our existing statutes and rules. We acknowledge that this transition resulting from the Wyoming statute will have economic effects on these entities. In our 2011 rule implementing Section 410 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which transitioned mid-sized investment advisers to state oversight, we discussed certain economic effects that result from transitioning a class of advisers from federal to state oversight.19 These economic effects include costs incurred by transitioning advisers to make the necessary filings to register with the state and to withdraw from Commission registration,20 and to comply with the state's ongoing reporting and inspections regime. Similarly, Wyoming advisers will be required to calculate and monitor assets under management going forward to determine if Commission registration (or deregistration, for those currently exceeding the threshold) would be required. At the same time, these advisers transitioning as a result of the Wyoming statute may experience cost savings associated with no longer being subject to the Commission's regulatory regime for registered investment advisers. Because the amendments affect only 35 small to mid-sized advisers that have principal offices and a place of business in the state of Wyoming out of a total 12,176 investment advisers currently filing Form ADV, the Commission does not anticipate that, taken together, these changes would have a significant effect on efficiency, competition, or capital formation.

19See supra note 5.

20 “The state” here principally refers to Wyoming. We recognize that advisers transitioning to Wyoming registration may be required to register with additional states as well, which may impose additional costs on such advisers.

Statutory Authority

The Commission is adopting technical amendments to Form ADV under section 19(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 [15 U.S.C. 77s(a)], sections 23(a) and 28(e)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78w(a) and 78bb(e)(2)], section 319(a) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 [15 U.S.C. 7sss(a)], section 38(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-37(a)], and sections 203(c)(1), 204 and 211(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b-3(c)(1), 80b-4, and 80b-11(a)].

The Commission is adopting technical amendments to Form ADV-W (17 CFR 279.2) under the authority set forth in sections 203(h), 204 and 211(a) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(h), 80b-4, and 80b-11)).

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 279

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Securities.

Text of Rule and Form Amendments

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 17, chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 279—FORMS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 1. The authority citation for part 279 continues to read as follows: Authority:

The Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-1, et seq.

§ 279.1 [Amended]
2. Form ADV (referenced in § 279.1) is amended by: a. Removing the phrase “have your principal office and place of business in Wyoming (which does not regulate advisers);” from Part 1A, Item 2.A.(3) and adding in its place “Reserved”; b. Adding “☐ WY” after “☐ WI” in the table of Part 1A, Item 2.C.; and c. Removing the phrase “have your principal office and place of business in Wyoming (which does not regulate advisers);” from Part 1A, Schedule R, Section 2.A.(3) and adding in its place “Reserved”. Note:

The text of Form ADV does not and the amendments will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

§ 279.2 [Amended]
3. Form ADV-W (referenced in § 279.2) is amended by adding “☐ WY” after “☐ WI” in the table in paragraph (b) of the Status section. Note:

The text of Form ADV-W does not and the amendments will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

By the Commission.

Dated: May 4, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-09331 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Parts 612 and 686 [Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057] RIN 1840-AD07 Teacher Preparation Issues AGENCY:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final rule; CRA Revocation.

SUMMARY:

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress has passed, and the President has signed, a resolution of disapproval of the Teacher Preparation Issues final regulations that were published on October 31, 2016. Pursuant to the resolution, the Department of Education (Department) is removing applicable regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

DATES:

This action is effective May 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sophia McArdle, Ph.D., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W256, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6318 or by email: [email protected].

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On October 31, 2016, the Department published the teacher preparation issues notice of final regulations (81 FR 75494). The regulations in 34 CFR part 612 were effective November 30, 2016. The amendments to part 686 were to be effective on July 1, 2017, except for amendatory instructions 4.A., 4.B., 4.C.iv., 4.C.x., and 4.C.xi., amending 34 CFR 686.2(d) and (e), which were to be effective July 1, 2021. Congress subsequently passed a resolution of disapproval of the rule, and President Trump signed the resolution into law as Public Law 115-14 on March 27, 2017. Accordingly, the Department is hereby removing part 612 of the teacher preparation issues final regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations. The amendments to part 686 were not effective, and therefore, were never part of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department is removing the instructions amending part 686 from the rule that published October 31, 2016.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 612

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs—education, Loan programs—education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.

Dated: May 4, 2017. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education. Revocation of Amendatory Instructions

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and Public Law 115-14 (March 27, 2017), the Secretary revokes the following amendatory instructions from FR Doc. 2016-24856, published in the issue of Monday, October 31, 2016 (81 FR 75494):

§§ 686.1, 686.2, 686.3, 686.11, 686.12, 686.32, 686.37, 686.40, 686.42, and 686.43 [Revocation of instructions]
1. On pages 75619 through 75622, remove amendatory instructions 2 through 12. Amendment to 34 CFR Chapter VI

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, and under the authority of the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) and Public Law 115-14 (March 27, 2017), the Secretary also amends chapter VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 612—[Removed] 1. Remove part 612.
[FR Doc. 2017-09351 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160810719-7353-02] RIN 0648-BG29 Amendments to the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NMFS issues regulations to implement measures described in Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) (Reef Fish FMP), Amendment 7 to the FMP for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Spiny Lobster FMP), and Amendment 6 to the FMP for Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the USVI (Coral FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule refers to these amendments, in combination, as the Accountability Measure (AM) Timing Amendment. This final rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment modifies the date for the implementation of AM-based closures for all species and species groups managed by the Council under the subject FMPs. The purpose of the AM Timing Amendment and this final rule is to minimize, to the extent practicable, the adverse socio-economic impacts of AM-based closures, while constraining catch levels to the applicable annual catch limits (ACLs) and preventing overfishing.

DATES:

This final rule is effective June 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES:

Electronic copies of the AM Timing Amendment, which includes an environmental assessment (EA), a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/caribbean/index.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

María del Mar López, telephone: 727-824-5305; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In the U.S. Caribbean exclusive economic zone (EEZ), the reef fish, spiny lobster, and corals and reef associated plants and invertebrates (corals) fisheries are managed under their respective FMPs. The FMPs were prepared by the Council and are implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

On January 5, 2017, NMFS published a notice of availability for the AM Timing Amendment and requested public comment (82 FR 1308). On February 10, 2017, NMFS published a proposed rule for the AM Timing Amendment and requested public comment (82 FR 10324). The proposed rule and the AM Timing Amendment outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the management measures described in the AM Timing Amendment and implemented by this final rule is provided below.

Management Measure Contained in This Final Rule

This final rule modifies the date for implementation of an AM-based closure in the event of an ACL overage for a species or species group managed by the Council in Puerto Rico, St. Thomas/St. John, and St. Croix under the Reef Fish, Coral, and Spiny Lobster FMPs. AM-based closures occur in the year following any overage triggering implementation of the AM. Specifically, an AM-based closure will be implemented from September 30 of the closure year backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year, for the number of days necessary to achieve the reduction in landings required to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction required will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year (December 31). This final rule to implement the AM Timing Amendment is expected to minimize adverse socio-economic effects from the implementation of AMs, while still helping to ensure that AM-based closures constrain harvest to the ACL and prevent overfishing.

The FMP for the Queen Conch Resources of Puerto Rico and the USVI is not included in the AM Timing Amendment because queen conch harvest is managed with an in-season closure when the ACL is reached or projected to be reached, rather than a post-season reduction in the fishing year.

Additional Action Contained in the AM Timing Amendment but Not Codified Through This Final Rule

In addition to the measure discussed above, the AM Timing Amendment requires that the Council revisit the practice of using September 30 as the end date for AM-based closures no longer than 2 years from the implementation of the AM Timing Amendment and no longer than every 2 years thereafter. Any formal review associated with revisiting the selected date would allow NMFS and the Council to specifically consider new information. Thus, any corresponding revisions would be expected to result in additional positive social and economic effects.

Comments and Responses

NMFS received a total of two comment submissions on the proposed rule and the AM Timing Amendment; one from a group of individuals and one from a Federal agency. The Federal agency stated that it had no comment on the proposed rule or the AM Timing Amendment. The other comment as well as NMFS' response, is summarized below.

Comment 1: NMFS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to collect or disclose data supporting that the rule would provide economic benefit to Caribbean fishermen and that it did not consider potential negative impact on the financial health of tourist industries. NMFS also failed to properly consider ecological factors in the AM Timing Amendment.

Response: NMFS disagrees. The Council and NMFS analyzed impacts to both the economic and ecological environments in the AM Timing Amendment Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA analyzed the effects of implementing the AM Timing Amendment on the human environment, including the impacts of the proposed action on the socio-economic, administrative, physical, biological, and ecological environments (including impacts to species listed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)). The data used in the AM Timing Amendment to analyze alternatives modifying the timing of AM-based closures in the AM Timing Amendment are described in the EA and have been determined by the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center to be the best scientific information available. The Council and NMFS used these data to consider and analyze the expected direct and indirect socio-economic effects of the proposed action on the fishing industries in the U.S. Caribbean, and considered the tourism industries that would be reasonably expected to be affected by the proposed actions in the AM Timing Amendment. For example, the Council and NMFS considered whether each alternative would be likely to lead to a closure during periods of peak tourism. The economic analysis in the EA determined that no significant impact on the socio-economic environment will result from the the AM Timing Amendment.

The EA also evaluated the impacts of the AM Timing Amendment on the biological and ecological environment and protected species. As discussed in the EA, the implementation of the AM Timing Amendment will minimally affect current fishing operations or activities; therefore, the Council and NMFS concluded that additional impacts on the ecological environment are not expected. The modification of the date of implementation of AM-based closures is not expected to adversely affect ESA-listed species or critical habitat beyond those effects previously considered in the subject FMPs and ESA Section 7 consultations.

The public has had multiple opportunities to participate in the development of the AM Timing Amendment and to provide comments. The public had the opportunity to comment on the AM Timing Amendment and draft EA at public hearings in November 2015 and August 2016, and during public testimony at the June 2016 and August 2016 Council meetings, in advance of final approval by the Council. Following the Council's approval of the AM Timing Amendment, NMFS provided the opportunity for public comment on the amendment through a 60-day public comment period on the notice of availability (82 FR 1308, January 5, 2017), and through a 30-day comment period on the proposed rule (82 FR 10326, February 10, 2017), consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and APA public notice and comment requirements.

Classification

The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with the AM Timing Amendment, the FMPs, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this final rule.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this rule would not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. A public comment relating to socio-economic implications and potential impacts on small businesses is addressed in the Comments and Responses section of this final rule. No changes to this final rule were made in response to public comments. As a result, a final regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

Accountability measures, Annual catch limits, Caribbean, Fisheries, Fishing.

Dated: May 4, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In § 622.12, revise paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 622.12 Annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for Caribbean island management areas/Caribbean EEZ.

(a) If landings from a Caribbean island management area, as specified in Appendix E to this part, except for landings of queen conch (see § 622.491(b)), or landings from the Caribbean EEZ for tilefish and aquarium trade species, are estimated by the SRD to have exceeded the applicable ACL, as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section for Puerto Rico management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(2) of this section for St. Croix management area species or species groups, paragraph (a)(3) of this section for St. Thomas/St. John management area species or species groups, or paragraph (a)(4) of this section for the Caribbean EEZ, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species groups that year by the amount necessary to ensure landings do not exceed the applicable ACL. As described in the respective FMPs, for each species or species group in this paragraph, any required fishing season reduction will be applied from September 30 backward, toward the beginning of the fishing year. If the length of the required fishing season reduction exceeds the time period of January 1 through September 30, any additional fishing season reduction will be applied from October 1 forward, toward the end of the fishing year. If NMFS determines the ACL for a particular species or species group was exceeded because of enhanced data collection and monitoring efforts instead of an increase in total catch of the species or species group, NMFS will not reduce the length of the fishing season for the applicable species or species group the following fishing year. Landings will be evaluated relative to the applicable ACL based on a moving multi-year average of landings, as described in the FMPs. With the exceptions of Caribbean queen conch in the Puerto Rico and St. Thomas/St. John management areas, goliath grouper, Nassau grouper, midnight parrotfish, blue parrotfish, and rainbow parrotfish, ACLs are based on the combined Caribbean EEZ and territorial landings for each management area. The ACLs specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of this section are given in round weight.

[FR Doc. 2017-09360 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 170126124-7124-01] RIN 0648-BG63 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northern Red Hake Accountability Measure AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action reduces the in-season possession limit adjustment trigger for northern red hake due to an annual catch limit overage in fishing year 2015. Reduction of the trigger is a non-discretionary action intended to minimize the potential for catch overages in the future. This action reinstates regulatory text that we inadvertently removed during a previous rule making action. The intent of this action is to inform the public of this reduction in the possession limit trigger. The regulatory correction is intended to clarify the original purpose of the regulation.

DATES:

The rule is effective May 9, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Burns, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9144, or [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This action reduces the in-season possession limit adjustment trigger for northern red hake, effective May 9, 2017, as described in the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The accountability measures for the small-mesh multispecies fishery require the reduction of the possession limit adjustment trigger when the fishery exceeds a stock's annual catch limit (ACL), as occurred with northern red hake in 2015. Additionally, this action reinstates the regulatory text that details the raised-footrope trawl gear specifications. Use of the raised-footrope trawl is mandatory in certain small-mesh exemption areas. This action reinstates the regulatory text that we inadvertently removed from the regulations when we published the final rule to implement the measures in Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP in 2013 (78 FR 20260; April 4, 2013).

The small-mesh multispecies fishery is managed as a component of the Northeast Multispecies FMP, using a series of exemptions from the minimum mesh size requirements of the groundfish fishery. There are three species managed as five stocks under these regulations (northern and southern silver hake, northern and southern red hake, and offshore hake). The northern stock areas are generally the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, and the southern stock areas are in Southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions. Silver hake, also known as “whiting,” is generally the primary target species of the fishery. Red hake is caught concurrently with whiting and is typically sold as bait.

Under the current regulations, if catch of a small-mesh multispecies stock exceeds its ACL in a given fishing year, we are required to reduce the in-season possession limit adjustment trigger (currently 62.5 percent for northern red hake) in a subsequent fishing year by 1 percent for each 1 percent by which the ACL was exceeded. During the fishing year, when we project that the landings have reached the trigger percentage of the total allowable landings (TAL), we will reduce the possession limit for that stock to an incidental level for the remainder of the fishing year.

This is not the first time that we have reduced the northern red hake in-season possession limit adjustment trigger. In fishing year 2012, the trigger for the incidental catch limit was 90 percent for all small-mesh multispecies stocks. We initially determined that the northern red hake ACL was exceeded by 45 percent in 2012 and 2013, so the incidental possession limit trigger was reduced from 90 percent to 45 percent, beginning in fishing year 2014. During development of the whiting specifications for fishing years 2015-2017, the New England Fishery Management Council's Small-Mesh Multispecies Plan Development Team determined that the 2012 ACL had been underestimated, meaning that the catch had exceeded the ACL less than previously thought. Accordingly, we adjusted the possession limit trigger for northern red hake from 45 percent to 62.5 percent of the TAL, beginning in fishing year 2015.

We included the adjusted possession limit trigger in the final specifications packages for the 2015-2017 fishing years. That action also reduced the northern red hake possession limit from 5,000 lb (2,268 kg) to 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip to delay the in-season accountability measure until later in the season and minimize the chance of a subsequent ACL overage, as occurred in fishing years 2012 and 2013. As an additional means of extending the season and reducing red hake discards, it established a new in-season possession limit trigger that reduced the possession limit for northern red hake to 1,500 lb (680 kg) per trip when estimated landings reach 45 percent of the TAL.

In fishing year 2015, the northern red hake ACL was 273 mt, with a TAL of 104 mt. Northern red hake commercial catch, including landings and discards, was 340 mt, exceeding the ACL by 67 mt, or 24.6 percent. Accordingly, this action reduces the possession limit trigger by 24.6 percent, from 62.5 percent of the TAL to 37.9 percent of the TAL, effective May 9, 2017. This measure reduces the possession limit for northern red hake from 3,000 lb (1,361 kg) per trip to the incidental possession limit of 400 lb (181 kg) once the fleet is projected to land 45.5 mt in fishing year 2017. This action also necessitates the removal of the 1,500-lb (680-kg) possession limit at 45 percent of the TAL. The reduced trigger will remain in effect until the Council changes it through specifications or a framework action. This action will not alter the possession limit triggers for any of the other small-mesh multispecies stocks because catch of those stocks did not exceed the respective ACLs in 2015.

In addition to adjusting the possession limit trigger percentage, this action re-instates important regulatory text that we inadvertently deleted from the regulations during a previous rulemaking action. Specifically, text for paragraphs (a)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) of § 648.80 were mistakenly removed from the regulations when an amendment in a final rule implementing measures for Amendment 19 was incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. Those longstanding paragraphs provide the detailed gear specifications for the raised-footrope trawl, a gear type that fishermen must use when fishing in certain small-mesh exemption areas. In that rule, we had intended only to amend the introductory text to § 648.80(a)(9)(ii), but the subsequent paragraphs were ultimately removed when the amendment was incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations.

For reasons described below, there is good cause to waive the 30-day delay of the effective date for the actions in this final rule. Accordingly, the adjusted possession limit adjustment trigger and the reinstatement of the regulatory text take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register (see Classification).

Classification

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for additional public comment for the modifications to the northern red hake possession limit trigger because it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final rule for Amendment 19 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP, which set the specifications and accountability measures for the small-mesh multispecies fishery, already considered comment on these measures with the understanding that the possession limit trigger could be adjusted when the ACL is exceeded. This action modifies the regulations regarding the accountability measures as intended by the Council and as required in the regulations. Adjustment of the possession limit trigger is a non-discretionary action required by the provisions of Amendment 19. Currently, these regulations specify the northern red hake trigger at 62.5 percent of the TAL. Because the ACL was exceeded, the 62.5-percent trigger for northern red hake will be reduced to 37.9 percent. If the new trigger is not published near the start of the 2017 fishing year on May 1, 2017, the fishery could once again exceed the catch limits because fishermen would not be aware of the new reduced trigger level, which could result in adverse impacts to fishery resources and curtailed fishing opportunities leading to unnecessary adverse economic impacts for fishery participants. The Council and industry were informed of this necessary action at recent meetings of the Council (September 20, 2016), the Council's Small-Mesh Multispecies Committee (October 13, 2016), and at a joint meeting of the Council's Small-Mesh Multispecies Plan Development Team and Advisory Panel (October 6, 2016). During those meetings, there was no indication that the Council intended to reconsider the need for this non-discretionary adjustment to the possession limit trigger. For the reasons stated above, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of these accountability measures.

As to the reinstatement of the regulatory text in paragraphs (a)(9)(ii)(A)-(D) in § 648.80, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, also finds there is good cause to waive prior notice and comment as it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The reinstatement of the regulatory text in paragraphs (a)(9)(ii)(A)-(D) in § 648.80 is necessary to ensure the proper specifications for the raised footrope trawl in the small-mesh fishery. The extraction of the relevant text was a drafting error and was not intended under Amendment 19, which was the basis for the rulemaking by which the text was inadvertently deleted. The industry has continued to comply with these specifications, which constitute standard industry practice, but the text setting forth these requirements is missing from the regulations. The specifications ensure that the trawl net is rigged to avoid contact with the ocean bottom to reduce the bycatch of non-targeted regulated species. The absence of these regulations may cause harm to fishery resources and benthic habitat and, therefore, should be reinstated as soon as practicable before the start of the 2017 fishing year to maintain the regulations as intended in the FMP. These gear requirements have undergone the appropriate level of notice and comment prior to their initial publication in the regulations. Delaying the re-instatement of this component of the fishery specifications to allow for notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it could have negative implications on the resource and create confusion for the industry. In addition, a delay for additional comment would be counter to the intent of the Council, which has not requested a reconsideration of the need for these important specifications. For the reasons stated above, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness of the raised footrope trawl regulations.

Because prior notice and opportunity for public comment are not required for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., do not apply.

This rule is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 4, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:

PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

2. In § 648.80, paragraphs (a)(9)(ii)(A) through (D) are added to read as follows:
§ 648.80 NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

(a) * * *

(9) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) Eight-inch (20.3-cm) diameter floats must be attached to the entire length of the headrope, with a maximum spacing of 4 ft (122.0 cm) between floats.

(B) The ground gear must all be bare wire not larger than 1/2 inch (1.2 cm) for the top leg, not larger than 5/8 inch (1.6 cm) for the bottom leg, and not larger than 3/4 inch (1.9 cm) for the ground cables. The top and bottom legs must be equal in length, with no extensions. The total length of ground cables and legs must not be greater than 40 fathoms (73 m) from the doors to wing ends.

(C) The footrope must be longer than the length of the headrope, but not more than 20 ft (6.1 m) longer than the length of the headrope. The footrope must be rigged so that it does not contact the ocean bottom while fishing.

(D) The raised footrope trawl may be used with or without a chain sweep. If used without a chain sweep, the drop chains must be a maximum of 3/8-inch (0.95-cm) diameter bare chain and must be hung from the center of the footrope and each corner (the quarter, or the junction of the bottom wing to the belly at the footrope). Drop chains must be hung at intervals of 8 ft (2.4 m) along the footrope from the corners to the wing ends. If used with a chain sweep, the sweep must be rigged so it is behind and below the footrope, and the footrope is off the bottom. This is accomplished by having the sweep longer than the footrope and having long drop chains attaching the sweep to the footrope at regular intervals. The forward end of the sweep and footrope must be connected to the bottom leg at the same point. This attachment, in conjunction with the headrope flotation, keeps the footrope off the bottom. The sweep and its rigging, including drop chains, must be made entirely of bare chain with a maximum diameter of 5/16 inches (0.8 cm). No wrapping or cookies are allowed on the drop chains or sweep. The total length of the sweep must be at least 7 ft (2.1 m) longer than the total length of the footrope, or 3.5 ft (1.1 m) longer on each side. Drop chains must connect the footrope to the sweep chain, and the length of each drop chain must be at least 42 inches (106.7 cm). One drop chain must be hung from the center of the footrope to the center of the sweep, and one drop chain must be hung from each corner. The attachment points of each drop chain on the sweep and the footrope must be the same distance from the center drop chain attachments. Drop chains must be hung at intervals of 8 ft (2.4 m) from the corners toward the wing ends. The distance of the drop chain that is nearest the wing end to the end of the footrope may differ from net to net. However, the sweep must be at least 3.5 ft (1.1m) longer than the footrope between the drop chain closest to the wing ends and the end of the sweep that attaches to the wing end.

§ 648.86 [Amended]
3. In § 648.86, paragraph (d)(5) is removed. 4. In § 648.90, paragraph (b)(5)(iii) is amended to read as follows:
§ 648.90 NE multispecies assessment, framework procedures and specifications, and flexible area action system.

(b) * * *

(5) * * *

(iii) Small-mesh multispecies in-season adjustment triggers. The small-mesh multispecies in-season accountability measure adjustment triggers are as follows:

Species In-season
  • adjustment
  • trigger
  • (percent)
  • Northern Red Hake 37.9 Northern Silver Hake 90 Southern Red Hake 90 Southern Silver Hake 90
    [FR Doc. 2017-09393 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 88 Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Proposed Rules NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 26, 50, 52, 73, and 140 [NRC-2015-0070] RIN 3150-AJ59 Regulatory Improvements for Power Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Preliminary draft regulatory analysis; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting comment on the preliminary draft regulatory analysis to support a rulemaking that would amend the NRC's regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. The NRC's goals in amending the regulations would be to provide for an efficient decommissioning process; reduce the need for exemptions from existing regulations; address other decommissioning issues deemed relevant by the NRC; and support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability. The NRC plans to hold a public meeting in spring 2017 to discuss the draft regulatory basis that was previously published in the Federal Register and the preliminary draft regulatory analysis to facilitate the development of public comments on those documents.

    DATES:

    Submit comments by June 13, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration of comments received on or before this date.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by the following method:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0070. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions contact the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher Howells, telephone: 301-415-1381, email: [email protected]; or Fred Schofer, telephone: 301-415-5682, email: [email protected] Both are staff of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments II. Discussion III. Request for Comment IV. Cumulative Effects of Regulation V. Plain Writing I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0070.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The preliminary draft regulatory analysis document is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16271A511.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0070 in your comment submission. If you cannot submit your comments on the Federal rulemaking Web site, www.regulations.gov, then contact one of the individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons to not include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. Please note that the NRC will not provide formal written responses to each of the comments received on the preliminary draft regulatory analysis. However, the NRC staff will consider all comments received in the development of the final regulatory analysis.

    II. Discussion

    On March 15, 2017, the NRC published a document in the Federal Register issuing a draft regulatory basis to support the “Regulatory Improvements for Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning” rulemaking to amend the NRC's power reactor decommissioning regulations (82 FR 13778). The draft regulatory basis was made available for a 90-day public comment period (ending on June 13, 2017). In the draft regulatory basis, the NRC concludes that it has sufficient justification to proceed with rulemaking in the areas of emergency preparedness, physical security, decommission trust fund, offsite and onsite financial protection requirements and indemnity agreements, and application of the backfit rule. Further, the NRC is recommending rulemaking to: (1) Require that the post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) contain a description of how the spent fuel stored under a general independent spent fuel storage installation license will be removed from the reactor site in accordance with the regulatory requirements in § 50.82, “Termination of License,” of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), 10 CFR 50.54(bb), 10 CFR 52.110, “Termination of License,” and 10 CFR 72.218, “Termination of Licenses;” and (2) amend 10 CFR 51.53, “Postconstruction Environmental Reports,” and 10 CFR 51.95, “Postconstruction Environmental Impact Statements,” to clarify that the requirements for a license amendment before decommissioning activities may commence applies only to non-power reactors, as specified in 10 CFR 50.82(b).

    In the draft regulatory basis, the NRC concludes that regulatory activities other than rulemaking—such as guidance development—should be used to address stakeholder concerns regarding the appropriate role of State and local governments in the decommissioning process, the level of NRC review and approval of the PSDAR, and the 60 year limit for power reactor decommissioning. The NRC also determined that additional stakeholder input is needed prior to finalizing recommendations related to cyber security, drug and alcohol testing, certified fuel handler training and minimum staffing, aging management, and fatigue management. The NRC is seeking specific public input on these topics as part of the public comment request on the entire draft regulatory basis.

    To supplement the draft regulatory basis, the NRC has prepared a preliminary draft regulatory analysis, in which the costs, benefits, and other impacts of each rulemaking alternative are presented in order to determine the economic impact to industry and to government from the proposed rulemaking. The NRC prepared the preliminary draft regulatory analysis to support decision making during the preparation of the draft regulatory basis document, which includes an evaluation of possible regulatory improvements for reactors transitioning to decommissioning.

    III. Request for Comment

    The NRC is requesting comment on the preliminary draft regulatory analysis that was prepared to support the draft regulatory basis for the “Regulatory Improvements for Reactors Transitioning to Decommissioning” rulemaking. As you prepare your comments, consider the following general questions:

    1. Is the NRC considering appropriate alternatives for each regulatory area described in the preliminary draft regulatory analysis?

    2. Are there additional factors that the NRC should consider in each regulatory area? What are these factors?

    3. Is there additional information concerning regulatory impacts that the NRC should include in its regulatory analysis for this rulemaking?

    4. Are all costs and benefits properly addressed to determine the economic impact of the rulemaking alternatives?

    5. What additional costs or cost savings will the rulemaking alternatives cause to society, industry, and government?

    IV. Cumulative Effects of Regulation

    The cumulative effects of regulation (CER) describe the challenges that licensees or other impacted entities (such as State agency partners) may face while implementing new regulatory positions, programs, and requirements (e.g., rules, generic letters, backfits, inspections). The CER is an organizational effectiveness challenge that results from a licensee or impacted entity implementing a number of complex positions, programs, or requirements within a limited implementation period and with available resources (which may include limited available expertise to address a specific issue). The NRC has implemented CER enhancements to the rulemaking process to facilitate public involvement throughout the rulemaking process. In developing comments on the preliminary draft regulatory analysis, consider the following questions:

    (1) In light of any current or projected CER challenges, what should be a reasonable effective date, compliance date, or submittal date(s) from the time the final rule is published to the actual implementation of any new proposed requirements, including changes to programs, procedures, or the facility?

    (2) If current or projected CER challenges exist, what should be done to address this situation (e.g., if more time is required to implement the new requirements, what period of time would be sufficient, and why such a time frame is necessary)?

    (3) Do other regulatory actions (e.g., orders, generic communications, license amendment requests, and inspection findings of a generic nature) by the NRC or other agencies influence the implementation of the potential proposed requirements?

    (4) Are there unintended consequences? Does the potential proposed action create conditions that would be contrary to the potential proposed action's purpose and objectives? If so, what are the consequences and how should they be addressed?

    (5) Please provide information on the costs and benefits of the potential proposed action. This information will be used to support additional regulatory analysis by the NRC.

    V. Plain Writing

    The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, well-organized manner. The NRC has written this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published in the Federal Register on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31883). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of May 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Gregory T. Bowman, Deputy Director, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09332 Filed 5-4-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0333; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-005-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Canadair Limited) Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that an oxygen bottle was found loose while the clamp strap was in the locked position. This proposed AD would require modification of the clamp strap and installation of additional shims, as applicable, to the flight crew's oxygen bottle retaining structures. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0333; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0333; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-005-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-33, dated October 12, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the implementation of Service Bulletin (SB) 215-4051, the oxygen bottle was found loose while the clamp strap was in the locked position. This was determined to be caused by the quick release latch assembly not achieving the proper clamping pressure.

    The release of the oxygen bottle due to improper clamping pressure may result in a loose mass cockpit hazard or an oxygen rich environment leading to a possible fire hazard.

    In order to mitigate the unsafe condition, SB 215-4457 was issued to modify the clamp strap and install additional shims to add strength to the attaching structure for all affected aeroplanes.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0333.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4457, Revision 3, dated May 8, 2013. The service information describes procedures for installing shims, and, for certain airplanes, modifying the straps of the latch assembly, on the flight crew's oxygen bottles' retaining structure. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Modification and installation 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 $2,250 $3,610 $93,860
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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): Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Canadair Limited): Docket No. FAA-2017-0333; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-005-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 23, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. (Type Certificate previously held by Canadair Limited) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial numbers 2001, 2002, 2005 through 2007 inclusive, 2010, 2012 through 2017 inclusive, 2019, 2022 through 2024 inclusive, 2026, 2057, 2063, 2065, 2076, 2077, and 2081.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/Furnishings.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that an oxygen bottle was found loose while the clamp strap was in the locked position. We are issuing this AD to prevent an oxygen bottle from being released, which would result in a loose mass object in the cockpit and could also result in an oxygen-rich environment that could lead to a possible fire hazard.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation and Modification

    Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, install additional shims and modify the clamp strap, as applicable, to the flight crew's oxygen bottle retaining structures, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4457, Revision 3, dated May 8, 2013.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using any of the service information identified in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4457, Revision 2, dated October 24, 2012.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4457, Revision 1, dated June 12, 2012.

    (3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 215-4457, dated April 4, 2012.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7300; fax: 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Viking Air Limited's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-33, dated October 12, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0333.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-7318; fax: 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone: 514-855-5000; fax: 514-855-7401; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09324 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2017-0334; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-008-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-01, for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2014-25-01 currently requires modifying the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm and installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. Since we issued AD 2014-25-01, we have received reports of discrepancies of a certain bolt at the pivot pin link, resulting in corrosion of the bolt. This proposed AD would instead require modifying the NLG shock strut assembly. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 23, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2017-0334; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2017-0334; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-008-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

    Discussion

    On November 28, 2014, we issued AD 2014-25-01, Amendment 39-18042 (79 FR 73808, December 12, 2014) (“AD 2014-25-01”), for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. AD 2014-25-01 was prompted by a report of several missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts. AD 2014-25-01 requires modifying the NLG trailing arm and installing a new pivot pin retention mechanism. We issued AD 2014-25-01 to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of an NLG tire during take-off or landing.

    Since we issued AD 2014-25-01, we have received reports of missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts and chrome peeling on special bolt part number 47205-1 at the pivot pin link, resulting in corrosion of the bolt substrate layer. Therefore, we have determined that the actions required by AD 2014-25-01 do not address the identified unsafe condition.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R2, dated December 21, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Two in-service incidents have been reported on DHC-8 Series 400 aircraft in which the nose landing gear (NLG) trailing arm pivot pin retention bolt (part number NAS6204-13D) was damaged. One incident involved the left hand NLG tire which ruptured on take-off. Investigation determined that the retention bolt failure was due to repeated contact of the castellated nut with the towing device including both the towbar and the towbarless rigs. The loss of the retention bolt allowed the pivot pin to migrate from its normal position and resulted in contact with and rupture of the tire. The loss of the pivot pin could compromise retention of the trailing arm and could result in a loss of directional control due to loss of nose wheel steering. The loss of an NLG tire or the loss of directional control could adversely affect the aircraft during take-off or landing.

    To prevent the potential failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, Bombardier Aerospace has developed a modification which includes a new retention bolt, a reverse orientation of the retention bolt and a rework of the weight on wheel (WOW) proximity sensor cover to provide clearance for the re-oriented retention bolt.

    Since the original issue of this [Canadian] AD [which corresponds to AD 2010-13-04, Amendment 39-16335 (75 FR 35622, June 23, 2010)], there have been several reports of pivot pin retention bolts found missing or damaged. Additional investigation determined that the failures were caused by high contact stresses on the retention bolt due to excessive frictional torque on the pivot pin and an adverse tolerance condition at the retention bolt.

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD mandated the installation of a new pivot pin retention mechanism.

    Since the issuance of Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD, there have been reports of chrome peeling on special bolt part number 47205-1 at the pivot pin link resulting in corrosion of the bolt substrate layer.

    Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of new special bolt part number 47205-3 with additional processing for increased chrome plating adhesion on aeroplanes equipped with nose landing gear shock strut assembly part number 47100-19 or any assembly with Bombardier (BA) Service Bulletin (SB) 84-32-110 incorporated. In addition, Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD mandates the installation of a new pivot pin retention mechanism that includes new special bolt part number 47205-3 on aeroplanes equipped with nose landing gear shock strut assembly part number 47100-9, 47100-11, 47100-13, 47100-15, or 47100-17 without BA SB 84-32-110 incorporated. The corrective actions of Revision 2 of this [Canadian] AD cancel and replace the corrective actions of Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0334.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016. The service information describes procedures for modifying the NLG shock strut assembly by installing a new, improved pivot pin retention mechanism and a new retention bolt. 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.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $8,840, or $170 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 this proposed regulation:

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-25-01, Amendment 39-18042 (79 FR 73808, December 12, 2014), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0334; Directorate Identifier 2017-NM-008-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 23, 2017.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-25-01, Amendment 39-18042 (79 FR 73808, December 12, 2014).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001, 4003 through 4533 inclusive, and 4535, equipped with any nose landing gear (NLG) shock strut assembly having part number 47100-9, 47100-11, 47100-13, 47100-15, 47100-17, or 47100-19.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing or damaged pivot pin retention bolts and chrome peeling on a certain bolt at the pivot pin link, resulting in corrosion of the bolt. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the pivot pin retention bolt, which could result in a loss of directional control or loss of an NLG tire during takeoff or landing.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Installation of Improved Pivot Pin Retention Mechanism and Bolt

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Install a new pivot pin retention mechanism to the NLG shock strut assembly, and replace the existing pivot pin retention bolt with a new bolt, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, Revision A, dated October 18, 2016.

    (h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-145, dated July 26, 2016.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 New York ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-29R2, dated December 21, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0334.

    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Fabio Buttitta, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7303; fax 516-794-5531.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. 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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 2, 2017. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09325 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 275 [Release No. IA-4697; File No. S7-05-17] RIN 3235-AM02 Amendments to Investment Advisers Act Rules To Reflect Changes Made by the FAST Act AGENCY:

    Securities and Exchange Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to amend the definition of a venture capital fund (rule 203(l)-1) and the private fund adviser exemption (rule 203(m)-1) under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) in order to reflect changes made by title LXXIV, sections 74001 and 74002 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (the “FAST Act”), which amended sections 203(l) and 203(m) of the Advisers Act. Title LXXIV, section 74001 of the FAST Act amended the exemption from investment adviser registration for any adviser solely to one or more “venture capital funds” in Advisers Act section 203(l) by deeming “small business investment companies” to be “venture capital funds” for purposes of the exemption. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the definition of a venture capital fund to include “small business investment companies.” Title LXXIV, section 74002 of the FAST Act amended the exemption from investment adviser registration for any adviser solely to “private funds” with less than $150 million in assets under management in Advisers Act section 203(m) by excluding the assets of “small business investment companies” when calculating “private fund assets” towards the registration threshold of $150 million. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the definition of “assets under management” in the private fund adviser exemption to exclude the assets of “small business investment companies.”

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed rule amendments should be received on or before June 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File No. S7-05-17 on the subject line; or

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

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number S7-05-17. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All 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.

    Studies, memoranda or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or staff to the comment file during this rulemaking. A notification of the inclusion in the comment file of any such materials will be made available on the Commission's Web site. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such notifications, sign up through the “Stay Connected” option at www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Songer, Senior Counsel or Alpa Patel, Branch Chief at (202) 551-6787 or [email protected], Investment Adviser Regulation Office, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-8549.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission is proposing amendments to rules 203(l)-1 [17 CFR 275.203(l)-1] and 203(m)-1 [17 CFR 275.203(m)-1] under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80b].1

    1 Unless otherwise noted, when we refer to the Advisers Act, or any paragraph of the Advisers Act, we are referring to 15 U.S.C. 80b of the United States Code [15 U.S.C. 80b], at which the Advisers Act is codified, and when we refer to Advisers Act rules, or any paragraph of these rules, we are referring to Title 17, Part 275 of the Code of Federal Regulations [17 CFR 275], in which these rules are published.

    Table of Contents I. Background II. Discussion A. Proposed Amendments to Rule 203(l)-1 B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 203(m)-1 III. Economic Analysis A. Introduction and Economic Justification B. Costs and Benefits C. Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation D. Request for Comment IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification VI. Consideration of the Impact on the Economy VII. Statutory Authority VIII. Text of Proposed Rule Amendments I. Background

    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (the “FAST Act”) 2 amended sections 203(l) and 203(m) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”) 3 regarding the registration of investment advisers to small business investment companies (“SBICs”).4 Title LXXIV, section 74001 of the FAST Act amended the exemption from investment adviser registration for any adviser solely to one or more “venture capital funds” in Advisers Act section 203(l) (“venture capital fund adviser exemption”) by deeming SBICs to be “venture capital funds” for purposes of the exemption. Accordingly, we are proposing to amend the definition of “venture capital funds” in Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 to include SBICs. Title LXXIV, section 74002 of the FAST Act amended the exemption from investment adviser registration for any adviser solely to “private funds” with less than $150 million in assets under management in Advisers Act section 203(m) (“private fund adviser exemption”) by excluding the assets of SBICs for purposes of calculating private fund assets towards the registration threshold of $150 million.5 Accordingly, we are also proposing to amend the definition of “assets under management” in Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 to exclude the assets of SBICs.

    2 Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312 (Dec. 4, 2015).

    3 15 U.S.C. 80b.

    4 An SBIC is (other than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is regulated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940): (A) A small business investment company that is licensed under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (“SBIA”), (B) an entity that has received from the Small Business Administration notice to proceed to qualify for a license as a small business investment company under the SBIA, which notice or license has not been revoked, or (C) an applicant that is affiliated with 1 or more licensed small business investment companies described in subparagraph (A) and that has applied for another license under the SBIA, which application remains pending. Advisers Act section 203(b)(7).

    5 The term “private fund” means an issuer that would be an investment company, as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, but for section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of that Act. Advisers Act section 202(a)(29). While we believe most SBICs are private funds, it is possible for an SBIC to be an investment company registered with the Commission. See 13 CFR 107.115 (stating that a registered investment company is eligible to apply for an SBIC license).

    Advisers Act section 203(b)(7) provides an exemption from investment adviser registration for advisers solely to SBICs (the “SBIC adviser exemption”). We believe that, prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, the SBIC adviser exemption was the primary exemption from investment adviser registration available to advisers to SBICs.6 The FAST Act expanded the applicability of the venture capital fund adviser exemption and the private fund adviser exemption to specifically include advisers to SBICs. Advisers relying on the SBIC adviser exemption are not subject to reporting or recordkeeping provisions under the Advisers Act or examination by our staff.7 Advisers who rely on the venture capital fund adviser exemption and the private fund adviser exemption are exempt from registration under the Advisers Act; however, they are considered “exempt reporting advisers” and must maintain such records and submit such reports as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.8 Exempt reporting advisers are required to file a subset of the information requested by Form ADV with the Commission but are not subject to many of the other substantive requirements to which registered investment advisers are subject.

    6 Although we believe that most, if not all, SBICs are private funds, we believe that very few advisers to SBICs have private fund assets under management in the United States of less than $150 million. Therefore, very few advisers to SBICs are likely to qualify for the private fund adviser exemption. See SBIC Program Overview, Small Business Administration, Office of Investment and Innovation, Data Management Branch, September 30, 2016, available at: https://www.sba.gov/sbic/general-information/program-overview (“SBIC Program Overview”).

    7 Under section 204(a) of the Advisers Act, the Commission has the authority to require an investment adviser to maintain records and provide reports, as well as the authority to examine such adviser's records, unless the adviser is specifically exempted from the requirement to register pursuant to Advisers Act section 203(b). Advisers Act section 203(b)(7) provides an exemption from registration for advisers solely to SBICs. Advisers Act sections 204(a) and 203(b)(7); Exemptions for Advisers to Venture Capital Funds, Private Fund Advisers With Less Than $150 Million in Assets Under Management, and Foreign Private Advisers, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3222 (June 22, 2011) [76 FR 39646 (July 6, 2011)] (“Exemptions Release”) at footnote 5 and accompanying text.

    8 Under Advisers Act section 204(a), the Commission has the authority to require an investment adviser to maintain records and provide reports, as well as the authority to examine such adviser's records, unless the adviser is specifically exempted from the requirement to register pursuant to Advisers Act section 203(b). Investment advisers that are exempt from registration in reliance on other sections of the Advisers Act, such as sections 203(l) or 203(m), are not specifically exempted from the requirement to register pursuant to section 203(b), and thus the Commission has authority under Advisers Act section 204(a) to require those advisers to maintain records and provide reports and has authority to examine such advisers' records. Advisers Act sections 203(l)(1) and 203(m)(2). See also Exemptions Release supra footnote 7 at footnote 5 and accompanying text. Advisers Act rule 204-4 requires an exempt reporting adviser to complete and file reports on Form ADV by following the instructions in the Form, which specify the information that an exempt reporting adviser must provide. See “Frequently Asked Questions on Form ADV and IARD” available at: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/iard/iardfaq.shtml (“Form ADV FAQs”) at section entitled: “Reporting to the SEC as an Exempt Reporting Adviser”; Form ADV: General Instructions available at: https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-instructions.pdf (“General Instructions to Form ADV”) at Instruction 3. Further, an adviser electing to be an exempt reporting adviser with the Commission must separately evaluate the need to register in any state in which it operates. General Instructions to Form ADV at Instruction 14.

    Advisers to SBICs can now rely on the following exemptions from investment adviser registration with the Commission: (1) The SBIC adviser exemption and advise only SBICs; (2) the venture capital fund adviser exemption and advise both SBICs and venture capital funds (as defined in rule 203(l)-1); or (3) the private fund adviser exemption and advise both SBICs and non-SBIC private funds, provided those non-SBIC private funds account for less than $150 million in assets under management in the United States.9

    9See FAST Act supra footnote 2. See generally, FAST Act Changes Affecting Investment Advisers to Small Business Investment Companies (March 2016), available at: https://www.sec.gov/investment/im-guidance-2016-03.pdf (“Staff Guidance”).

    As discussed above, we are proposing to amend our rules regarding the definition of “venture capital fund” in Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 and the definition of “assets under management” in Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 for private funds to reflect in our rules the changes made by the FAST Act's amendments to the Advisers Act.

    II. Discussion A. Proposed Amendments to Rule 203(l)-1

    The venture capital fund adviser exemption in section 203(l) of the Advisers Act provides that an investment adviser that solely advises venture capital funds is exempt from registration under the Advisers Act.10 Advisers who qualify for the venture capital fund adviser exemption are exempt from registration under the Advisers Act; however, they are considered “exempt reporting advisers” and must maintain such records and submit such reports as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.11 The FAST Act amended the venture capital fund adviser exemption by deeming SBICs to be venture capital funds for purposes of the exemption.12

    10 We note, however, that depending on the facts and circumstances, we may view two or more separately formed advisory entities, each of which purports to rely on a separate exemption from registration, as a single adviser for purposes of assessing the availability of exemptions from registration. For example, an adviser may not advise venture capital funds with more than $150 million in assets under management in reliance on the venture capital fund adviser exemption and also advise other types of private funds with less than $150 million in assets under management in reliance on the private fund adviser exemption. See Exemptions Release supra footnote 7 at footnote 314, footnote 506 and accompanying text. See also In the Matter of TL Ventures Inc., Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3859 (June 20, 2014) (settled action); Advisers Act section 208(d), which prohibits a person from doing indirectly or through or by another person, any act or thing which it would be unlawful for such person to do directly.

    11 Advisers Act section 203(l)(1). See Rules Implementing Amendments to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Investment Advisers Act Release No. 3221 (June 22, 2011) [76 FR 42950 (July 11, 2011)] (“Implementing Release”) at section II.B. Advisers Act rule 204-4 requires an exempt reporting adviser to complete and file reports on Form ADV by following the instructions in the Form, which specify the information that an exempt reporting adviser must provide. See Form ADV FAQs supra footnote 8 at section entitled: “Reporting to the SEC as an Exempt Reporting Adviser”; General Instructions to Form ADV supra footnote 8 at Instruction 4.

    12 Advisers Act section 203(l)(2).

    Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 defines a “venture capital fund” for purposes of the venture capital fund adviser exemption.13 While most, if not all, SBICs meet the definition of a “private fund” under the Advisers Act,14 they may not meet the rule 203(l)-1 definition of a “venture capital fund.” We are proposing to amend Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 to include SBICs in the definition of venture capital funds for purposes of the venture capital fund adviser exemption.15 Amending the definition of venture capital fund in Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 will make it consistent with Advisers Act section 203(l)(2), thereby reflecting in the rule the application of the venture capital fund adviser exemption to advisers to SBICs. Under this proposal, an adviser to SBICs who relies on the venture capital fund adviser exemption would be required to submit Form ADV reports to the Commission as an exempt reporting adviser, consistent with the current requirement for advisers relying on the venture capital fund adviser exemption.16

    13 Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1(a) generally defines a “venture capital fund” as a private fund that: (i) Represents to investors and potential investors that it pursues a venture capital strategy; (ii) holds no more than 20 percent of the fund's capital commitments in assets that are not qualifying investments (other than short-term holdings); (iii) does not borrow or otherwise incur leverage in excess of 15 percent of the fund's capital commitments, and such borrowing is for a non-renewable term of no longer than 120 days (excluding certain guarantees of qualifying portfolio company obligations by the fund from the 120 day limit); (iv) does not offer its investors redemption or certain other liquidity rights except in extraordinary circumstances; and (v) is not registered under the Investment Company Act and has not elected to be treated as a business development company. See also Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1(b) and (c).

    14 Advisers Act section 202(a)(29).

    15 Proposed Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1(a).

    16 Advisers Act section 203(l)(1). See Implementing Release supra footnote 11 at section II.B.

    We are requesting comment on the proposed amendment to rule 203(l)-1.

    • Prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, was the SBIC adviser exemption the primary exemption from investment adviser registration available to advisers to SBICs or did advisers to SBIC rely on other exemptions from registration? If so, which ones?

    • Should we make any changes to the proposed amendment in order to better reflect the FAST Act's amendment to section 203(l) of the Advisers Act?

    • Are there alternative methods for reflecting the FAST Act's amendment to section 203(l) of the Advisers Act that would be clearer?

    • Like all exempt reporting advisers, advisers to SBICs relying on the proposed amendments would be required to report on Form ADV certain information about the private funds that they advise, including any SBIC that they advise that is a private fund.

    ○ Should we revise Form ADV to require advisers to SBICs to report more information for SBICs than is currently required to be reported for private funds? For example, should we require advisers to provide an identifier, such as the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) license number for their SBICs? Would investors or other users benefit from such information? Why or why not?

    ○ Should we revise Form ADV to require advisers to SBICs to report less information for SBICs than is currently required to be reported for private funds? Why or why not?

    B. Proposed Amendments to Rule 203(m)-1

    The private fund adviser exemption in Advisers Act section 203(m) directs the Commission to provide an exemption from registration to any investment adviser that solely advises private funds if the adviser has assets under management in the United States of less than $150 million.17 Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 implements the private fund adviser exemption. Advisers who qualify for the private fund adviser exemption are exempt from registration under the Advisers Act; however, they are considered “exempt reporting advisers” and must maintain such records and submit such reports as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.18 The FAST Act amended the private fund adviser exemption to require that private fund advisers exclude the assets of their SBICs for purposes of calculating private fund assets towards the registration threshold of $150 million.

    17Supra footnote 10.

    18 Advisers Act section 203(m)(2). See Implementing Release supra footnote 11 at section II.B. Advisers Act rule 204-4 requires an exempt reporting adviser to complete and file reports on Form ADV by following the instructions in the Form, which specify the information that an exempt reporting adviser must provide. See Form ADV FAQs supra footnote 8 at section entitled: “Reporting to the SEC as an Exempt Reporting Adviser”; General Instructions to Form ADV supra footnote 8 at Instruction 3.

    Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1(d)(1) defines “assets under management” for purposes of the private fund adviser exemption.19 We are proposing to amend Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1(d)(1) to exclude an adviser's regulatory assets under management attributable to SBICs from the definition of assets under management for purposes of the private fund adviser exemption.20 We believe that amending the definition of assets under management in Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 to make it consistent with Advisers Act section 203(m)(3) would reflect that advisers to both private funds and SBICs can rely on the private fund adviser exemption without regard to the SBIC assets that they advise. Under this proposal, an adviser to SBICs who relies on the private fund adviser exemption would still be required to submit reports to the Commission as an exempt reporting adviser and to include the SBICs that it advises on its Form ADV, consistent with the current requirement for advisers relying on the private fund adviser exemption.21

    19 For purpose of Advisers Act section 203(m), assets under management means the regulatory assets under management as determined under Item 5.F of Form ADV. Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1(d)(1). Instruction 5.b. to Part 1A of Form ADV explains how to calculate regulatory assets under management for purposes of Item 5.F of Part 1A of Form ADV. In general, it states that an adviser should include the securities portfolios for which it provides continuous and regular supervisory or management services. In the case of private funds, advisers are instructed to determine the current market value (or fair value) of the private fund's assets and the contractual amount of any uncalled commitment pursuant to which a person is obligated to acquire an interest in, or make a capital contribution to, the private fund. See Form ADV: Instructions for Part 1A available at https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formadv-instructions.pdf at Instruction 5.b.4.

    20 Proposed Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1(d)(1).

    21 Advisers Act section 203(m)(2). See Implementing Release supra footnote 11 at section II.B.

    We are requesting comment on the proposed amendment to rule 203(m)-1.

    • Should we make any changes to the proposed amendment in order to better reflect the FAST Act's amendment to section 203(m) of the Advisers Act?

    • Are there alternative methods for reflecting the FAST Act's amendment to section 203(m) of the Advisers Act that would be clearer?

    III. Economic Analysis A. Introduction and Economic Justification

    The Commission is sensitive to the potential economic effects of the proposed amendments to Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1. These effects include the benefits and costs to investment advisers, their funds, and the investors in their funds as well as the proposed amendments' implications for efficiency, competition, and capital formation. The economic effects of the proposed amendments are discussed below.

    The proposed amendments to Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1 would reflect changes made by title LXXIV, sections 74001 and 74002 of the FAST Act to the Advisers Act. While the FAST Act does not expressly require the Commission to amend the Advisers Act rules, the proposed amendments eliminate any confusion that might otherwise exist if Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1 were not amended. Proposed Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1 would reflect that advisers to venture capital funds and SBICs qualify for the venture capital fund adviser exemption from registration. Proposed Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 would reflect that advisers to SBIC and non-SBIC private funds with less than $150 million in non-SBIC private fund assets under management in the United States qualify for the private fund adviser exemption from registration.

    Economic Baseline

    To establish a baseline useful for evaluating the economic effects of the proposed amendments, we briefly describe the nature of SBICs and then define the different classes of advisers that could be affected by the proposal.

    According to the SBA, SBICs are investment funds that make equity and debt investments in qualifying small businesses and are licensed and regulated by the SBA.22 SBICs have access to low-cost capital because of a guarantee by the SBA. According to the SBA, this funding subsidy is intended to promote the SBIC program's purpose of bridging the gap between the small business community's need for capital and traditional sources of financing that might otherwise be more expensive.23

    22SBIC Program Overview supra footnote 6.

    23Id.

    Advisers to SBICs may also advise non-SBIC private funds, including venture capital funds. Depending on the amount and type of assets they advise, SBIC advisers belong to one of three categories: (1) Registered investment advisers; (2) exempt reporting advisers; or (3) advisers exempt from registration and reporting requirements. Registered investment advisers are required to file Form ADV and are also subject to other substantive requirements including the establishment of a compliance program and a Code of Ethics.24 Exempt reporting advisers are required to file a subset of the information requested by Form ADV with the Commission but are not subject to many of the other substantive requirements that registered investment advisers are subject to. Finally, any adviser that solely advises SBICs is exempt from registering with the Commission under section 203(b)(7) of the Advisers Act and does not have an obligation to report information to the Commission.25

    24 In addition to reporting requirements, registered investment advisers are required to comply with Advisers Act rules 204-2, 204-3, 204(b)-1, 204A-1, 206(4)-1, 206(4)-2, 206(4)-3, 206(4)-6 and 206(4)-7.

    25See supra footnote 7.

    Prior to the enactment of the FAST Act, an adviser to both SBICs and other non-SBIC private funds qualified for the private fund adviser exemption under Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1 if the adviser had assets under management in the United States, including assets of the SBICs it advised, of less than $150 million. Advisers to SBICs and other non-SBIC private funds that did not qualify for the private fund adviser exemption were required to register with the Commission. In addition, advisers to both venture capital funds and SBICs were required to register with the Commission unless they qualified for the private fund adviser exemption.

    In establishing a baseline for the proposed amendments, two additional classes of investment advisers that did not advise SBICs prior to the FAST Act are relevant: (1) Advisers solely to venture capital funds that qualify for the venture capital fund adviser exemption from registration and are considered exempt reporting advisers; and (2) advisers solely to private funds with less than $150 million in assets under management in the United States that qualify for the private fund adviser exemption from registration and are considered exempt reporting advisers. Prior to the FAST Act, advisers relying on the venture capital fund adviser exemption were required to register with the Commission if they added SBIC clients unless their total assets under management remained under $150 million, in which case they could instead rely on the private fund adviser exemption. In addition, prior to the FAST Act, advisers relying on the private fund adviser exemption were required to register with the Commission if they added SBIC clients that caused their total assets under management in the United States to equal or exceed $150 million.

    The FAST Act provided the classes of advisers discussed above with several options. First, registered investment advisers to SBICs and non-SBIC private funds can withdraw from registration and report to the Commission as exempt reporting advisers if their non-SBIC private fund assets under management in the United States are less than $150 million. Second, registered investment advisers to SBICs and venture capital funds can withdraw from registration and report to the Commission as exempt reporting advisers. Finally, advisers that qualified for either the venture capital fund adviser or private fund adviser exemptions prior to the FAST Act can begin advising SBICs without changing their registration status independent of the amount of assets attributable to SBICs.

    For those advisers that benefit from any of the above options, it would have been in their best economic interest to exercise such options following the passage of the FAST Act, particularly after the Commission's Division of Investment Management issued a guidance update regarding the application of the FAST Act.26 That guidance update indicated that the Commission's Division of Investment Management would not object to advisers who exclude the assets of the SBICs they advise when determining whether they qualify for the private fund adviser exemption or advisers who consider SBICs to be venture capital funds for the purposes of the venture capital fund adviser exemption.27 We believe, therefore, that it is likely that advisers have already exercised these options if doing so was in their best interest. However, inconsistencies in the definitions of venture capital funds and assets under management that exist between the Advisers Act rules and the FAST Act may have discouraged some advisers from exercising these options. For example, these inconsistencies may result in assets under management being calculated differently by advisers for purposes of the private fund adviser exemption, which could lead to similar advisers determining their reporting statuses differently.

    26See Staff Guidance supra footnote 9.

    27Id.

    As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately 12,182 registered investment advisers reporting a total of approximately $66.8 trillion in regulatory assets under management.28 In addition, there were 3,238 exempt reporting advisers, of whom 588 relied on the venture capital fund adviser exemption,29 2,348 relied on the private fund adviser exemption,30 and 302 qualified for both exemptions. For exempt reporting advisers that relied on the private fund adviser exemption, total private fund assets under management were approximately $124 billion.31 Registered investment advisers advise approximately 33,175 private funds, while exempt reporting advisers advise approximately 11,722 private funds. As of the end of 2016, there were 313 SBICs licensed by the SBA managing approximately $28 billion in assets.32 We are unable to identify which of those 313 SBICs are managed by advisers solely to SBICs compared to advisers that also advise other funds because section 203(b)(7) of the Advisers Act exempts advisers solely to SBICs from registration and reporting, and filers of Form ADV are not required to explicitly indicate whether they advise SBICs. Because filers of Form ADV are not required to explicitly indicate whether they advise SBICs, we are not able to estimate the number of advisers that have already taken advantage of the exemptions afforded to them by the FAST Act compared to the number of advisers who have not done so due to any inconsistencies between the Advisers Act rules and the FAST Act.

    28 We calculate these estimates using the last Form ADV filing for each adviser in the 15 months prior to January 1, 2016. This allows us to exclude advisers that are technically still registered with the Commission but have not filed a Form ADV for their most recent fiscal year. We use the same approach in calculating statistics for exempt reporting advisers. Our estimate of assets under management excludes filings that did not report this value so it should be considered a lower bound.

    29 Form ADV, Part 1A, Item 2.B.(1).

    30 Form ADV, Part 1A, Item 2.B.(2).

    31 Form ADV, Schedule D, Section 2.B. We exclude filings that did not report this value from our calculation so it should be considered a lower bound. Advisers relying on the venture capital fund adviser exemption are not required to answer this question.

    32See SBIC Program Overview supra footnote 6.

    The proposed amendments may affect the classes of investment advisers mentioned above, the funds they advise, and the investors in those funds. We discuss the potential economic effects of the proposed amendments on these parties in the next two sections.

    B. Costs and Benefits

    In this section, we discuss the costs and benefits that may result from the proposed amendments for each affected party. The economic effects discussed in this section only apply to the extent that advisers have not already exercised the exemption options provided to them under the baseline due to any inconsistencies between the FAST Act and the Advisers Act rules. As discussed above, we believe that it is likely that advisers have already exercised any exemption options provided to them by the FAST Act under the baseline if doing so was in their best interest, so we do not expect the magnitude of these effects to be significant. We discuss the amendments' likely impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation in the next section.

    As discussed in the Economic Baseline Section, advisers solely to SBICs are exempt from registering as investment advisers with the Commission. To the extent that any inconsistencies between the FAST Act and Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1 have discouraged advisers solely to SBICs from taking advantage of the venture capital fund adviser or private fund adviser exemptions, the proposed amendments could lead these advisers to take on additional venture capital or private fund clients. Such advisers can weigh the additional fee revenue associated with advising non-SBIC private funds against the costs of reporting to the Commission as exempt reporting advisers when determining whether to rely on either of the exemptions. We estimate that the annual cost of filing Form ADV for an exempt reporting adviser is $916.33 In addition, advisers that switch from exempt to exempt reporting status may incur indirect costs if the information they disclose on Form ADV, such as any disciplinary history, reduces investor demand for their advisory services. We are unable to estimate how many advisers solely to SBICs would choose to take on non-SBIC private funds as a result of the proposal because we do not have information on the demand for their advisory services from non-SBIC private funds or whether any additional business generated would offset these reporting costs. Furthermore, we cannot estimate the extent to which advisers solely to SBICs have been deterred from exercising their option to rely on the venture capital fund adviser and private fund adviser exemptions due to any inconsistencies between the FAST Act and the Advisers Act rules under the baseline.

    33 “Form ADV under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (Office of Management and Budget “OMB” Control No. 3235-0049) Supporting Statement at footnotes 37-42 and accompanying text. The total aggregate annual monetized burden for exempt reporting advisers is estimated to be $2,976,632 assuming there are 3,248 such advisers, resulting in an estimated cost of approximately $916 per exempt reporting adviser. Similarly, the total aggregate annual monetized burden for registered investment advisers is estimated to be $89,427,727 assuming there are 12,024 such advisers, resulting in an estimated cost of approximately $7,437 per registered investment adviser.

    The proposal provides registered advisers to SBICs and non-SBIC private funds that have not taken advantage of the venture capital fund adviser and private fund adviser exemptions due to inconsistencies between the FAST Act and the Advisers Act rules with clarification on the option to switch from registered investment adviser to exempt reporting adviser status. This option is difficult to value, but its value is broadly determined by the cost reductions associated with the change in registration status compared to the explicit and implicit costs of withdrawing from registration. Advisers that elect to change from registered to exempt reporting adviser status should expect to face reduced ongoing costs associated with filing Form ADV because, as exempt reporting advisers, they would only be required to complete certain portions of Form ADV.34 We estimate the annual cost savings associated with filing Form ADV as an exempt reporting adviser instead of as a registered investment adviser to be $6,521.35 Furthermore, such advisers would no longer bear the costs associated with the substantive requirements of being an adviser registered with the Commission.36 Such advisers would incur the one-time cost of filing a Form ADV-W withdrawal, which we estimate to be $119 per full withdrawal and $13 per partial withdrawal.37 They may also incur one-time operational costs associated with switching from registered to exempt reporting status, such as those associated with adapting information technology systems to a new reporting regime. Finally, to the extent that advisers benefit from marketing themselves as registered investment advisers to client funds and investors, they will forgo this benefit by withdrawing from registration. Because advisers are not required to rely on either of the exemptions in Advisers Act rules 203(l) or 203(m) even though they may qualify for them, we expect only those registered investment advisers that would experience a net benefit by relying on these exemptions and have not already done so following the FAST Act and subsequent Staff Guidance to withdraw from registration.38

    34 Exempt reporting advisers that are not also registering with any state securities authority must complete only the following Items of Form ADV, Part 1A: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11, as well as corresponding schedules. Exempt reporting advisers that are registering with any state securities authority must complete all of Form ADV. See Form ADV FAQs supra footnote 8 at section entitled: “Reporting to the SEC as an Exempt Reporting Adviser”; General Instructions to Form ADV supra footnote 8 at Instruction 3.

    35See supra footnote 33. The estimated annual cost of filing Form ADV as a registered investment adviser is approximately $7,437 and the estimated cost for an exempt reporting adviser is approximately $916.

    36See supra footnote 24 for a more detailed list of these requirements.

    37 “Rule 203-2 and Form ADV-W under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (OMB Control No. 3235-0313) Supporting Statement at footnotes 7 and 9 and accompanying text. An adviser would file full withdrawal if it was only registered with the Commission. An adviser would file a partial withdrawal if it was required to remain registered with one or more States. See Form ADV FAQs supra footnote 8 at section entitled: “Form ADV-W.”

    38 An adviser that qualifies for one of these exemptions can still choose to register with the Commission if it has sufficient assets under management. See Exemptions Release supra footnote 7 at footnote 24 and accompanying text.

    Investors in private funds, including venture capital funds and SBICs, may experience costs and benefits as a result of the proposed amendments. If investors face fixed costs in transacting with a given adviser, for example in performing any necessary due diligence, they may benefit if the proposed amendments encourage more advisers to advise both SBIC and non-SBIC private funds, allowing investors to consolidate different types of investments with a single adviser. We cannot quantify the extent to which investors prefer to use a single adviser or the number of advisers who will expand into either SBICs or non-SBIC private funds because we do not have the information needed to assess investors' latent demand for consolidated advice services or the number of advisers that have been deterred from expanding their client bases under the baseline. We therefore cannot estimate the magnitude of this potential cost reduction for investors.

    In addition, to the extent that the proposed amendments result in advisers changing their status from registered to exempt reporting, it may impose costs on investors. If investors value the transparency provided by complete Form ADV reporting and the safeguards associated with the other substantive requirements of being a registered investment adviser, then the proposed amendments could impose costs on investors if they result in advisers changing their status from registered to exempt reporting. However, such investors have the option of moving their investments to advisers that are registered and, as noted above, we expect that advisers will weigh the benefits and costs associated with remaining registered in connection with any change in reporting status. The proposal could also impose costs on investors if any reduction in transparency or the other substantive requirements associated with registration reduce the ability of the Commission to protect investors from potentially fraudulent investment advisory schemes.

    C. Efficiency, Competition, and Capital Formation

    As discussed above, because the proposed amendments potentially reduce the reporting requirements for advisers to both SBICs and non-SBIC private funds, they could result in an increased number of advisers in both markets. Advisers solely to SBICs may enter the market for venture capital or other private fund advisory services, and current advisers to non-SBIC private funds may enter the market for SBIC advisory services. In this section, we discuss the potential effects of these changes on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. As was the case above, the economic effects discussed in this section only apply to the extent that advisers have not already exercised the exemption options provided to them under the baseline due to any inconsistencies between the FAST Act and the Advisers Act rules, and we do not expect the magnitude of these effects to be significant.

    Changes in the costs of advising both SBIC and non-SBIC private funds, as described above, could have several competitive effects. First, to the extent that non-SBIC private fund advisers find it profitable to enter the market for SBICs under the proposed amendments, the amendments might increase competition in that market, resulting in reduced profits for SBIC advisers and lower advisory fees for their SBICs and their investors. Similarly, to the extent that SBIC advisers find it profitable to enter the non-SBIC private fund advisory market, the proposed amendments might increase competition in that market, resulting in reduced profits for non-SBIC private fund advisers and lower advisory fees for their non-SBIC private funds and their investors. Whether the proposed amendments result in such a reallocation of advisory services depends on whether advisers find it profitable to expand operations into new markets and whether they can do so without changing the quality or quantity of services in current markets. While we cannot precisely estimate the relative likelihood of the above competitive effects, the fact that the market for SBIC advisers is an order of magnitude smaller than the market for non-SBIC private fund advisers suggests that non-SBIC private fund advisers are more likely to have benefitted from expanding into the SBIC market following the FAST Act's enactment, thereby increasing the amount of competition in that market. As discussed above, it is likely that most advisers would have already exercised this option under the baseline if it was in their best interest to do so. Therefore, the competitive effects of the proposed amendments are not likely to be significant.

    Any relative shift of advisory talent from one segment of the market to another could also have effects on efficiency and capital formation. To the extent that advisers who expand into new markets as a result of the proposal possess skill in identifying investment opportunities, an increase in the supply of advisers in the SBIC and/or non-SBIC private fund markets could result in more efficient investment decisions and market prices that more accurately reflect the fundamental value of assets where applicable (for example, SBICs invest in private businesses that do not trade on public exchanges, but some private funds invest in publicly-traded securities). Also, any increase in the number of advisers in the SBIC market could make more capital available to small businesses if the increased supply of SBIC advisers attracts more capital to that market. In addition, to the extent that there are economies of scale in the provision of advisory services, advisory services may be provided at lower aggregate cost if the proposed amendments result in an expansion of advisers in either the SBIC or non-SBIC private fund market. To the extent that the proposed amendments result in reduced transparency into advisers because they opt to switch from registered to exempt reporting status, and to the extent that investors rely on that transparency when making investment decisions, the proposed amendments might cause a reduction in the efficiency of investor allocations to these advisers. Any reduction in transparency could also reduce the aggregate amount of capital managed by investment advisers if investors cannot find suitable registered investment advisers as replacements and these investors value transparency more than any benefits, such as potentially lower advisory fees, of the proposed amendments. Finally, if the proposed amendments increase the supply of investment advisers to SBICs and non-SBIC private funds, and these advisers attract assets that were not already invested in other markets, they may increase the aggregate amount of capital investment.

    D. Request for Comment

    We are requesting comment on our analysis of the potential economic effects of the proposed amendments to Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and203(m)-1.

    • Are there any other affected parties that we should consider in our analysis?

    • Do commenters agree that our quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits are reasonable and accurate? If not, please provide estimates of these costs, and explain why those estimates are different.

    • Are there any other costs to investment advisers, funds, or their investors that we should consider in this analysis? If so, please explain why those costs may be relevant to our analysis, and provide estimates for those costs.

    • Are there other effects on efficiency, competition, and capital formation that we should consider in our analysis?

    • We have not identified any reasonable alternatives to the proposed amendments. Are there alternative approaches to the proposed amendments that we should consider?

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    We do not believe that the proposed amendments to reflect changes made by the FAST Act make any substantive modifications to any existing collection of information requirements or impose any new substantive recordkeeping or information collection requirements within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).39

    39 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    The proposed amendments to reflect the changes made by the FAST Act as described in Section II above may shift the number of advisers between each class of advisers as well as include advisers solely to SBICs that take on additional non-SBIC venture capital fund or private fund clients and therefore would become exempt reporting advisers.

    However, we do not have information at this time to estimate whether and to what extent these changes may occur and therefore believe that the current burden and cost estimates for the existing collection of information requirements remain appropriate.40 Thus, we believe that the proposed amendments should not impose substantive new burdens on the overall population of respondents or affect the current overall burden estimates for the affected forms.41 Accordingly, we are not revising any burden and cost estimates in connection with these amendments. We request comment on whether our belief that the proposed amendments would not impose substantive new burdens on the overall population of respondents or affect the current overall burden estimates for the affected forms is correct.

    40 The most recent Paperwork Reduction Act analysis for Form ADV, which is pending approval by the Office of Management and Budget, is based upon the number of registered advisers and exempt reporting advisers as of May 1, 2016. Because approximately five months had passed between the signing of the FAST Act and May 1, 2016, we believe that most of the advisers who wanted to change their registration status as a result of the FAST Act, did so in that five month period and are therefore included in the most recent Paperwork Reduction Act analysis for Form ADV. “Form ADV under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940” (OMB Control No. 3235-0049).

    41See Section III above.

    V. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,42 the Commission hereby certifies that the proposed amendments to Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1 would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Under Commission rules, for the purposes of the Advisers Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an investment adviser generally is a small entity if it: (i) Has assets under management having a total value of less than $25 million; (ii) did not have total assets of $5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year; and (iii) does not control, is not controlled by, and is not under common control with another investment adviser that has assets under management of $25 million or more, or any person (other than a natural person) that had $5 million or more on the last day of its most recent fiscal year (“small adviser”).43

    42 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    43 Rule 0-7(a) (17 CFR 275.0-7(a)).

    Small advisers to SBICs and venture capital funds and small advisers to SBICs and private funds would be generally prohibited from registering with the Commission under section 203A of the Advisers Act because of their assets under management.44 However, there may be some small advisers to SBICs and venture capital funds and some small advisers to SIBCs and private funds that are not prohibited from registering with the Commission.45 We believe that small advisers to SBICs and venture capital funds that are not prohibited from registering with the Commission are able to rely on the venture capital fund adviser exemption under section 203(l) of the Advisers Act as implemented by Advisers Act rule 203(l)-1. We also believe that small advisers to SBICs and private funds that are not prohibited from registering with the Commission are able to rely on the private fund adviser exemption under section 203(m) of the Advisers Act as implemented by Advisers Act rule 203(m)-1. As discussed in Section III above, we do not believe that our proposed amendments, if adopted, would result in a significant economic impact. Also, we do not know the exact number of advisers to SBICs. However, as of the end of 2016, there were 313 SBICs licensed by the SBA.46 Even if we assume that there is a separate adviser for each SBIC, the maximum number of advisers to SBICs would be only 313. We believe that only a small subset of these 313 advisers would meet the definition of small adviser described above. For these reasons, the Commission preliminarily believes that the proposed amendments to Advisers Act rules 203(l)-1 and 203(m)-1 would not, if adopted, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    44 Section 203A(a)(1)(A) of the Advisers Act generally prohibits an investment adviser regulated as an investment adviser by the State in which it maintains its principal office and place of business from registering with the Commission unless the adviser has at least $25 million of assets under management. Section 203(A)(a)(2) further prohibits certain advisers from registering with the Commission unless they have at least $100 million of assets under management.

    45 For example, the prohibition of Advisers Act section 203A(a) does not apply to advisers that are required by the laws of 15 or more States to register as an investment adviser with the state securities authority in the respective States. Advisers Act rule 203A-2(d) (17 CFR 275. 203A-2(d)).

    46See SBIC Program Overview supra footnote 6.

    The Commission requests written comments regarding this certification. The Commission requests that commenters describe the nature of any impact on small businesses and provide empirical data to support the extent of the impact.

    VI. Consideration of the Impact on the Economy

    For purposes of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, or “SBREFA,” 47 we must advise the Office of Management and Budget whether a proposed regulation constitutes a “major” rule. Under SBREFA, a rule is considered “major” where, if adopted, it results in or is likely to result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers or individual industries; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, investment or innovation.

    47 Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C., 15 U.S.C. and as a note to 5 U.S.C. 601).

    We request comment on the potential impact of the proposed amendments on the economy on an annual basis. Commenters are requested to provide empirical data and other factual support for their views to the extent possible.

    VII. Statutory Authority

    The Commission is proposing to amend rule 203(l)-1 under the authority set forth in sections 211(a) and 203(l) of the Advisers Act, (15 U.S.C. 80b-11(a) and 80b-3(l), respectively). The Commission is proposing to amend rule 203(m)-1 under the authority set forth in sections 211(a) and 203(m) of the Advisers Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-11(a) and 80b-3(m), respectively).

    List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 275

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Securities.

    VIII. Text of Proposed Rule Amendments

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend Title 17, Chapter II of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows.

    PART 275—RULES AND REGULATIONS, INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940 1. The authority citation for part 275 continues to read, in part, as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11)(G), 80b-2(a)(11)(H), 80b-2(a)(17), 80b-3, 80b-4, 80b-4a, 80b-6(4), 80b-6a, and 80b-11, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend section 275.203(l)-1 by revising the introductory text to paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 275.203(l)-1 Venture capital fund defined.

    (a) Venture capital fund defined.- For purposes of section 203(l) of the Act (15. U.S.C. 80b-3(l)), a venture capital fund is any entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 203(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(b)(7)) (other than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is regulated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-53)) or any private fund that:

    3. Amend section 275.203(m)-1 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows:
    § 275.203(m)-1 Private fund adviser exemption.

    (d) * * *

    (1) Assets under management means the regulatory assets under management as determined under Item 5.F of Form ADV (§ 279.1 of this chapter) except that the regulatory assets under management attributable to a private fund that is an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of section 203(b)(7) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 80b-3(b)(7)) (other than an entity that has elected to be regulated or is regulated as a business development company pursuant to section 54 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-53)) shall be excluded from the definition of assets under management for purposes of this section.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09334 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 17 CFR Chapter I RIN 3038-AE55 Project KISS AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Request for Information.

    SUMMARY:

    In order to reduce regulatory burdens and costs in the markets that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission” or “CFTC”) oversees, the Commission is seeking suggestions from the public about how the Commission's existing rules, regulations, or practices could be applied in a simpler, less burdensome, and less costly manner.

    DATES:

    Suggestions must be received on or before September 30, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit suggestions, identified by RIN number 3038-AE55, by any of the following methods:

    • The agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting a Project KISS suggestion through the Public Comment Form.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

    Please submit your suggestions using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Gill, Regulatory Reform Officer, (202) 418-5713, [email protected], Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1151 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581; or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On February 24, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13777: Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda (“E.O. 13777”). E.O. 13777 directs federal agencies, among other things, to designate a Regulatory Reform Officer and establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force. Although the CFTC, as an independent federal agency,1 is not bound by E.O. 13777, the Commission is nevertheless commencing an agency-wide review of its rules, regulations, and practices to make them simpler, less burdensome, and less costly. This initiative is called Project KISS, which stands for “Keep It Simple Stupid.” 2 In support of these efforts, the Commission has approved the solicitation of suggestions from the public regarding how the Commission's existing rules, regulations, or practices could be applied in a simpler, less burdensome, and less costly manner. The public may submit Project KISS suggestions through the Public Comment Form on the Commission's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov.

    1 Independent federal agencies exist outside of the federal executive departments headed by a Cabinet secretary and the Executive Office of the President. See Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935); 5 U.S.C. 104.

    2See Remarks of Acting Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo before the 42nd Annual International Futures Industry Conference in Boca Raton, FL, Mar. 15, 2017, available at http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/SpeechesTestimony/opagiancarlo-20.

    The Commission is not asking the public to identify rules for revocation, suspension, annulment, withdrawal, limitation, amendment, modification, conditioning or repeal. The submission of a Project KISS suggestion will not constitute a petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule pursuant to § 13.2 of the Commission's regulations,3 nor will it constitute a request for an exemptive, no-action, or interpretive letter pursuant to § 140.99 of the Commission's regulations.4 The Commission will treat Project KISS suggestions like the Commission treats other correspondence that it receives. Submission of a Project KISS suggestion may not result in Commission action.

    3 17 CFR 13.2.

    4 17 CFR 140.99.

    All suggestions must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Suggestions will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish to submit information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act in your suggestion(s), please submit your suggestion(s) via Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier and also submit a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.5

    5 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your suggestion(s) from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as a suggestion containing obscene language. Any suggestions that contain comments on the merits of an outstanding proposed rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file for that rulemaking and considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws. All suggestions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of an outstanding proposed rulemaking will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2017, by the Commission. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission. Appendix to Project KISS—Commission Voting Summary

    On this matter, Acting Chairman Giancarlo and Commissioner Bowen voted in the affirmative. No Commissioner voted in the negative.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09318 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 and 165 [Docket Number USCG-2017-0224] RIN 1625-AA08, AA00 Special Local Regulations; Safety Zones; Recurring Marine Events in Sector Columbia River AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a special local regulation in the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Columbia River Zone for recurring marine events. During the recurring events, these regulated areas would be activated and would restrict vessels from portions of the waterway. These events were previously published as safety zones, temporary safety zones or individual regulated areas and have been revised and consolidated into a single as special local regulation in order to expedite public notification of events and ensure the protection of the maritime public from hazards associated with the annual events. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2017-0224 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 on this rule, call or email LCDR Laura Springer, Waterways Management Division, Marine Safety Unit Portland, Coast Guard; telephone 503-240-9319, 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

    Swim events and marine events are held on an recurring basis on the navigable waters within the Coast Guard COTP Columbia River Zone. In the past, the Coast Guard established special local regulations with regulated areas and safety zones for these recurring events on a case by case basis to ensure the protection of the maritime public and event participants from the hazards associated with these events. The Coast Guard has not received public comments or concerns regarding the impact to waterway traffic from these annually recurring events.

    This proposed rule would consistently apprise the public in a timely manner through permanent publication in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The table in this proposed rule would list each annual recurring event requiring a regulated area as administered by the Coast Guard.

    By establishing permanent regulations containing these events the Coast Guard would eliminate the need to establish temporary rules for events that occur on an annual basis and thereby limit the costs associated with cumulative regulations.

    This rulemaking would remove, add, and consolidate regulations to better meet the Coast Guard's intended purpose of ensuring safety during these events. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231 and 1233.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to revise and rename 33 CFR 100.1302 to cover marine events within the Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River. We also propose to remove §§ 100.1303 (Annual Kennewick, Washington, Columbia Unlimited Hydroplane Races), 100.1305 (Richland, Washington, west coast outboard championship hydro races), 165.1341 (Portland Dragon Boat Races, Portland, OR), and 165.1342 (Annual Roy Webster Cross-Channel Swim, Columbia River, Hood River, OR).

    These proposed changes will convert two existing safety zones (those currently in §§ 165.1341 and 165.1342) and temporary safety zones established annually for four events (The Big Float, Swim the Snake, Richland Regatta, and Columbia Crossing) into regulated areas in § 100.1302. This is intended to consolidate and simplify our existing special local regulations. We are removing the West Coast Outboard Championship Hydro races regulations in § 100.1305 because that race has not been held for a number of years.

    By establishing a single permanent regulation containing these events, the Coast Guard will eliminate the need to establish temporary rules for events that occur on an annual basis. This provides opportunity for the public to comment while limiting the unnecessary burden of continually establishing temporary rules every year.

    Additionally, this rule proposes to reorganize and consolidate existing Sector Columbia River COTP Zone marine event regulations in 33 CFR part 100 and marine event safety zones under 33 CFR part 165. This action will eliminate the burden and confusion caused by the current configuration of numerous individual regulations spread across two CFR parts.

    As large numbers of spectator vessels and marine traffic are expected to congregate around the event location, the regulated areas are needed to protect both spectators and participants from the safety hazards associated with the event. During the enforcement period of the regulated areas, persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within the zone unless specifically authorized by the COTP or the designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State and local agencies in the enforcement of these regulated areas. These events are listed below in the text of the regulation.

    Certain special local regulations are listed without known dates or times. Coast Guard Sector Columbia River will cause notice of the enforcement of these regulated areas to be made by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among the effected segments of the public, including publication in the Federal Register, Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    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 and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.

    The Coast Guard has previously promulgated special local regulations or safety zones, in 33 CFR parts 100 and 165, for all event areas contained within this proposed regulation and has not received notice of any negative impact caused by any of the safety zones or special local regulations. By establishing a permanent regulation containing all of these events, the Coast Guard will eliminate the need to establish individual temporary rules for each separate event that occurs on an annual basis, thereby limiting the costs of cumulative regulations.

    Vessels will only be restricted from special local regulation areas for a short duration of time. Vessels may transit in portions of the affected waterway except for those areas covered by the proposed regulated areas. Notifications of exact dates and times of the enforcement period will be made through notices of enforcements published in the Federal Register. In addition, we will inform the local maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or both. No new or additional restrictions would be imposed on vessel traffic.

    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 regulated areas 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 regulated areas for swim events and other marine events. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) 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.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 and Part 165

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways, Harbors, Security measures.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 and 165 as follows:

    PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS 1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Revise § 100.1302 to read as follows:
    § 100.1302 Special Local Regulations; Marine Events Within the Captain of the Port Zone Columbia River.

    This section applies to the marine events listed in Table 1 of this section. The regulations in this section will be enforced for the duration of each event, on or about the dates indicated in Table 1 of this section. Annual notice of the exact dates and times of the effective period of the regulations in this section with respect to each event, the geographical description of each regulated area, and details concerning the nature of the event and the number of participants and type(s) of vessels involved will be provided to the local maritime community through the Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or both, well in advance of the events. If the event does not have a date listed, then the exact dates and times of the enforcement will be announced through a Notice of Enforcement in the Federal Register. Mariners should consult the Federal Register or their LNM to remain apprised of minor schedule or event changes. Thirteenth Coast Guard District LNM can be found at: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/. The application requirements of § 100.15 apply to all marine events listed in the Table of this section.

    (a) The Coast Guard may patrol each event area under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM). PATCOM may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by the call sign “PATCOM.” Official patrol vessels may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the Captain of the Port, Sector Columbia River.

    (b) PATCOM may control the movement of all vessels in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the lawful directions issued. Failure to comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both.

    (c) PATCOM may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart at any time it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property. Such action may be justified as a result of weather, traffic density, spectator operation or participant behavior.

    (d) Vessels may not transit the regulated areas without PATCOM approval. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at a no wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger participants or other crafts in the event.

    (e) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated areas during the effective dates and times, or dates and times as modified through LNM, unless authorized by an official patrol vessel.

    Table 1 [All coordinates listed in the Table reference Datum NAD 1983] No./Date Event Sponsor Location 1. First or second weekend in June Rose Fest Dragon Boat Races Portland-Kaohsiung Sister Association Portland, OR. Regulated area includes all waters of the Willamette River shore to shore, bordered on the north by the Hawthorne Bridge, and on the south by the Marquam Bridge. 2. One day in May or June Spring Testing Hydroplane races Tri-Cities Water Follies Association Kennewick, WA. Regulated area includes all navigable waters within the Columbia River in the vicinity of Columbia Park, commencing at the Interstate 395 Bridge and continuing up river approximately 2.0 miles and terminating at the northern end of Wade Island. 3. Second weekend in June Richland Regatta Hydroplane races Northwest Power Boat Association Richland, WA. Regulated area includes all navigable waters of the Columbia River in the vicinity of Howard Amon Park, between River Miles 337 and 338. 4. Last Tuesday through Sunday in July Kennewick Hydroplane Races Tri-Cities Water Follies Association Kennewick, WA. Regulated area includesall navigable waters within the Columbia River in the vicinity of Columbia Park, commencing at the Interstate 395 Bridge and continuing up river approximately 2.0 miles and terminating at the northern end of Wade Island. 5. One Saturday in July The Big Float, group inner-tube float Human Access Project Portland, OR. Regulated area includes all navigable waters of the Willamette River, in Portland, Oregon, enclosed by the Hawthorne Bridge, the Marquam Bridge, and west of a line beginning at the Hawthorne Bridge at approximate location 45°30′50″ N.; 122°40′21″ W., and running south to the Marquam Bridge at approximate location 45°30′27″ N.; 122°40′11″ W. 6. Second Saturday in August Swim the Snake Blue Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Perry, WA. Regulated area includes all navigable waters, bank-to-bank of the Snake River, 500 yards upstream and 500 yards downstream from the Washington State Highway 261 Bridge at the approximate position of 46°35′23″ N.; 118°13′10″ W. 7. Annually on Labor Day Roy Webster Cross Channel Swim Hood River County Chamber of Commerce Hood River, OR. Regulated area includes all waters of the Columbia River between River Mile 169 and River Mile 170. 8. First or second weekend in September Portland Dragon Boat Races DragonSports USA Portland, OR. Regulated area includes the western side of the Willamette River extending from Tom McCall Waterfront Park between the Hawthorne and Marquam Bridges, Portland, OR: line one starting at 45-30′49″ N./122-40′24″ W. then heading east to 45-30′49″ N./122-40′22″ W. then heading south to 45-30′29″ N./122-40′08″ W. then heading west to 45-30′26″ N./122-40′14″ W. then heading north ending at 45-30′49″ N./122-40′24″ W. 9. First Saturday after Labor Day weekend Columbia Crossing Swim 3 Rivers Road Runners Pasco, WA. Regulated area includes all navigable waters, bank-to-bank of the Columbia River in Pasco, Washington, between river mile 332 and river mile 335.
    §§ 100.1303 and 100.1305 [Removed]
    3. Remove §§ 100.1303 and 100.1305 PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 4. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    §§ 165.1341 and 165.1342 [Removed]
    5. Remove §§ 165.1341 and 165.1342 Dated: April 21, 2017. B.C. McPherson, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09368 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 170314267-7267-01] RIN 0648-BG48 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Monkfish; Framework Adjustment 10 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are proposing to approve and implement regulations submitted by the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils in Framework Adjustment 10 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan. This action would set monkfish specifications for fishing years 2017-2019 (May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2020). This action would also increase current days-at-sea allocations and trip limits to provide additional operational flexibility and fishing opportunities. This action is needed to allow the fishery to more effectively harvest its optimum yield.

    DATES:

    Public comments must be received by May 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2017-0026, by either of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2017-0026, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2276. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on Monkfish Framework 10.”

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    New England Fishery Management Council staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for Monkfish Framework Adjustment 10 that describes the proposed action and other considered alternatives. The EA provides a thorough analysis of the biological, economic, and social impacts of the proposed measures and other considered alternatives, a preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, and economic analysis. Copies of the Framework 10 EA are available on request from Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. This document is also available from the following Internet addresses: http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/ or http://www.nefmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    William Whitmore, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9182.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The monkfish fishery is jointly managed under the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) by the New England and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils. The fishery extends from Maine to North Carolina from the coast out to the end of the continental shelf. The Councils manage the fishery as two management units, with the Northern Fishery Management Area (NFMA) covering the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and northern part of Georges Bank, and the Southern Fishery Management Area (SFMA) extending from the southern flank of Georges Bank through Southern New England and into the Mid-Atlantic Bight to North Carolina.

    The monkfish fishery is primarily managed by landing limits and a yearly allocation of monkfish days-at-sea (DAS) calculated to enable vessels participating in the fishery to catch, but not exceed, the target total allowable landings (TAL) and the annual catch target ((ACT), which is the TAL plus an estimate of expected discards) for each management area. Both the ACT and the TAL are calculated to maximize yield in the fishery over the long term. Based on a yearly evaluation of the monkfish fishery, the Councils may revise existing management measures through the framework provisions of the FMP to better achieve the goals and objectives of the FMP and achieve optimum yield, as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    The monkfish fishery has not fully harvested its quota since 2011. The fishery harvested less than 70 percent of its quota in the last three years (Table 1). The Councils developed Framework 10 to enhance the operational efficiency of existing management measures in an effort to better achieve optimum yield.

    Table 1—Monkfish Landings Comparison for Fishing Years 2013-2015 Management area Target TAL
  • (mt) for
  • fishing years
  • 2013-2015
  • 2013
  • Landings
  • (mt)
  • 2014
  • Landings
  • (mt)
  • 2015
  • Landings
  • (mt)
  • Average % of
  • TAL landed
  • 2013-2015
  • NFMA 5,854 3,596 3,403 4,080 63 SFMA 8,925 5,088 5,415 4,733 57
    Proposed Measures 1. Establish Specifications for Fishing Years 2017-2019

    This action proposes to increase monkfish quotas for the next three fishing years (Table 2). Findings from the 2016 monkfish operational assessment support these quota increases. The 2016 assessment did update several indicators including commercial fishery statistics, fishery-independent survey indices, and fishery performance indices. The 2016 operational assessment also provided a plan for setting catch advice. It should be noted, though, that the 2016 monkfish operational assessment did not update the population model used in previous assessments because new information revealed problems with the methods used to estimate monkfish age and growth. Despite this, based on updated data from the assessment, the New England Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended retaining the status quo overfishing limit (OFL) and allowable biological catch limit (ABC) for both management areas for fishing years 2017-2019 (May 1, 2017, through April 30, 2020). The OFL would be 17,805 mt for the NFMA and 23,204 mt for the SFMA. The ABC, which equals the annual catch limit (ACL), would stay at 7,592 mt for the NFMA and 12,316 for the SFMA.

    Framework 10 updates the discard rates for both management areas based on catch data updated in the 2016 operational assessment (Table 1). The previous discard rate is calculated as the ratio of discards to catch from fishing years 2004-2006. The proposed discard rate would use discard information from fishing years 2013-2015. The proposed changes would increase the discard rate in the NFMA from 10.9 percent to 13.9 percent, and from 22.5 percent to 24.6 percent in the SFMA.

    The proposed TALs would increase because of modifications to the management uncertainty buffers. Framework 10 proposes to reduce the management uncertainty buffers in both management areas to 3 percent (Table 2). The current management uncertainty buffers are 13.5 percent in the NFMA and 6.5 percent in the SFMA. The approach used to calculate discards has performed well in the past; an adequate amount of discards has been forecasted, reducing the likelihood of the ACL being exceeded. Further, the TALs have been consistently underharvested in both areas (Table 1). For these reasons, this action proposes to reduce the management uncertainty buffer.

    Table 2—Proposed Specification Changes in Framework Adjustment 10 Management area Management uncertainty buffer Current
  • (%)
  • Proposed
  • (%)
  • Discard rate Current
  • (%)
  • Proposed
  • (%)
  • Total allowable landings (TAL) Current
  • (mt)
  • Proposed
  • (mt)
  • TAL change
  • (%)
  • NFMA 13.5 3 10.9 13.9 5,854 6,338 8.27 SFMA 6.5 3 22.5 24.6 8,925 9,011 0.96
    2. Monkfish DAS and Trip Limit Increases

    Framework 10 proposes trip limit increases in both management areas as well as a DAS increase in the SFMA.

    In the NFMA, incidental landing limits for vessels fishing on a groundfish DAS would increase from 600 lb (272 kg) to 900 lb (408 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category C permitted vessels and from 500 lb (227 kg) to 750 lb (340 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category D permitted vessels. Vessels targeting groundfish land most of the monkfish in the NFMA. Increasing the incidental trip limits for vessels targeting groundfish may increase monkfish landings; however, analyses suggest that a substantial increase is unlikely. This measure would reduce the administrative burden for most Category C and D permitted vessels because they would no longer need to declare a monkfish DAS to retain a higher monkfish possession limit. Increasing the incidental trip limit would also allow these vessels to retain additional monkfish that otherwise would have been discarded when fishing solely on a groundfish DAS under the current (lower) trip limits.

    In the SFMA, the DAS allocation and trip limits would increase by 15 percent. Monkfish permitted vessels could fish in the SFMA for 37 DAS. Trip limits for permit Category A and C vessels would increase from 610 lb (277 kg) to 700 lb (318 kg) tail weight/DAS and from 500 lb (227 kg) to 575 lb (261 kg) tail weight/DAS for Category B and D permitted vessels. The majority of monkfish landings in the SFMA come from vessels directly targeting monkfish. Vessels directing on monkfish in the SFMA are more restricted by DAS allocations and trip limits than vessels fishing in the NFMA. Therefore, these trip limit and DAS increases are projected to generate more fishing opportunities and landings in the SFMA.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule is consistent with the Monkfish FMP, Framework 10, provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

    This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) that this action, if adopted, would not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.

    As outlined in the preamble of this rule, the purpose of this action is to implement Framework 10 to the Monkfish FMP. Framework 10 would set monkfish specifications for fishing years 2017-2019. As proposed, the TAL of monkfish in both the NFMA and SFMA would increase slightly. This action would also increase trip limits in both management areas and the DAS allocations that could be fished in the SFMA. As a result, this action would increase operational flexibility, fishing opportunities, and revenue. Current monkfish quotas have been underharvested for the past several years. This framework is needed to allow the fishery to more effectively harvest its optimum yield. This action seeks to fulfill the purpose and need while meeting the overarching goals and objectives of the Monkfish FMP.

    As of May 1, 2015 (beginning of fishing year 2015), NMFS had issued 798 limited-access monkfish permits. Ownership entities are identified on June 1st of each year based on the list of all permit numbers, for the most recent complete calendar year, that have applied for any type of Northeast Federal fishing permit. The current ownership data set is based on calendar year 2015 permits and contains gross sales associated with those permits for calendar years 2013 through 2015.

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The determination as to whether the entity is large or small is based on the average annual revenue for the three years from 2013 through 2015.

    Ownership data collected from permit holders indicate that there are 390 distinct business entities that hold at least one limited-access monkfish permit. Of these 390 entities, 34 do not have revenues (are inactive). Of the 390 entities, 382 entities are categorized as small and 8 are categorized as large entities per the NMFS guidelines. All 390 entities could be directly regulated by this proposed action. There are 38 entities that are “monkfish dependent” (greater than 50 percent of the entity's gross sales are from the sales of monkfish) and all are considered small entities.

    This action, which updates specifications and increases DAS and trip limits, would provide monkfish fishermen with additional fishing opportunities and enhance their operational flexibility.

    The measures proposed in Framework 10 are expected to have a positive economic effect on small entities. It could further increase catch per unit effort; well accepted economic theory holds that this will result in increased profitability, all else held constant. Providing increased fishing opportunities should increase landings and profits.

    This action is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The effects on the regulated small entities identified in this analysis are expected to be positive relative to the no action alternative, which would result in lower TALs, fewer DAS, and lower trip limits than the proposed action. Under the proposed action, small entities would not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to large entities, and the regulations would not reduce the profit for any small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Alan D. Risenhoover, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.92, revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
    § 648.92 Effort-control program for monkfish limited access vessels.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (ii) DAS restrictions for vessels fishing in the SFMA. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit may not use more than 37 of its 46 monkfish DAS allocation in the SFMA during each fishing year. Each vessel issued a limited access monkfish permit fishing in the SFMA must declare that it is fishing in this area through the vessel call-in system or VMS prior to the start of every trip. In addition, if a vessel does not possess a valid letter of authorization from the Regional Administrator to fish in the NFMA as described in § 648.94(f), NMFS shall presume that any monkfish DAS used were fished in the SFMA.

    3. In § 648.94, revise paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) and (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
    § 648.94 Monkfish possession and landing restrictions.

    (b) * * *

    (2) Vessels fishing under the monkfish DAS program in the SFMA—(i) Category A, C, and G vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category A, C, or G permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 700 lb (318 kg) tail weight or 2,037 lb (924 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87 kg) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (ii) Category B, D, and H vessels. A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category B, D, or H permit that fishes under a monkfish DAS in the SFMA may land up to 575 lb (261 kg) tail weight or 1,673 lb (759 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). For every 1 lb (0.45 kg) of tail-only weight landed, the vessel may land up to 1.91 lb (0.87) of monkfish heads only, as described in paragraph (a) of this section.

    (3) Category C, D, F, G, and H vessels fishing under the multispecies DAS program—(i) NFMA. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 900 lb (408 kg) tail weight or 2,619 lb (1,188 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category D permit that fishes under a NE multispecies DAS, and not a monkfish DAS, exclusively in the NFMA may land up to 750 lb (340 kg) tail weight or 2,183 lb (990 kg) whole weight of monkfish per DAS (or any prorated combination of tail weight and whole weight based on the conversion factor for tail weight to whole weight of 2.91). A vessel issued a limited access monkfish Category C, D, or F permit participating in the NE Multispecies Regular B DAS program, as specified under § 648.85(b)(6), is also subject to the incidental landing limit specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section on such trips.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09363 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    82 88 Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Document No. AMS-LPS-16-0117] 2017 Rates Charged for AMS Services AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is announcing the 2017 rates it will charge for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, and cotton and tobacco. The 2017 regular, overtime, holiday, and laboratory services rates will be applied at the beginning of the crop year, fiscal year or as required by law (June 1 for most cotton programs) depending on the commodity. Other starting dates are added to this notice based on cotton industry practices. This action establishes the rates for user-funded programs based on costs incurred by AMS.

    DATES:

    May 10, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sonia Jimenez, AMS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2095-S, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250; telephone (202) 720-6766, fax (202) 205-5772; email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended, (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), provides for the collection of fees to cover costs of various inspection, grading, certification or auditing services covering many agricultural commodities and products. The AMA also provides for the recovery of costs incurred in providing laboratory services. The Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476) and the U.S. Cotton Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51-65) provide for classification of cotton and development of cotton standards materials necessary for cotton classification. The Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 15b) provides for futures certification services and the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-511s) provides for tobacco inspection and grading. These Acts also provide for the recovery of costs associated with these services.

    On November 13, 2014, the Department of Agriculture (Department) published in the Federal Register a final rule that established standardized formulas for calculating the fees charged by AMS user-funded programs (79 FR 67313). Every year since then, the Department has published in the Federal Register a notice announcing the rates for its user -funded programs.

    This notice announces the 2017 fee rates for voluntary grading, inspection, certification, auditing and laboratory services for a variety of agricultural commodities including meat and poultry, fruits and vegetables, eggs, dairy products, and cotton and tobacco on a per-hour rate and, in some instances, the equivalent per-unit cost. The per-unit cost is provided to facilitate understanding of the costs associated with the service to the industries that historically used unit-cost basis for payment. The fee rates will be effective at the beginning of the fiscal year, crop year, or as required by specific laws (June 1 for most cotton programs). The cotton futures-related services effective date has been changed to August 1 to allow for cotton contracts to expire before starting a new fee rate.

    The rates reflect direct and indirect costs of providing services. Direct costs include the cost of salaries, employee benefits, and if applicable, travel and some operating costs. Indirect or overhead costs include the cost of Program and Agency activities supporting the services provided to the industry. The formula used to calculate these rates also includes operating reserve, which may add to or draw upon the existing operating reserves.

    These services include the grading, inspection or certification of quality factors in accordance with established U.S. Grade Standards; audits or accreditation according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards and/or Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles; and other marketing claims. The quality grades serve as a basis for market prices and reflect the value of agricultural commodities to both producers and consumers. AMS' grading and quality verification and certification, audit and accreditation, plant process and equipment verification, and laboratory approval services are voluntary tools paid for by the users on a fee-for-service basis. The agriculture industry can use these tools to promote and communicate the quality of agricultural commodities to consumers. Laboratory services are provided for analytic testing, including but not limited to chemical, microbiological, biomolecular, and physical analyses. AMS is required by statute to recover the costs associated with these services.

    As required by the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 U.S.C. 471-476), consultations regarding the establishment of the fee for cotton classification with U.S. cotton industry representatives are held in the beginning of the year when most industry stakeholder meetings take place. Representatives of all segments of the cotton industry, including producers, ginners, bale storage facility operators, merchants, cooperatives, and textile manufacturers were informed of the fees during various industry-sponsored forums.

    Rates Calculations

    AMS calculated the rate for services, per hour per program employee, using the following formulas (a per-unit base is included for programs that charge for services on a per-unit basis):

    (1) Regular rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours for the previous year, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus the allowance for bad debt rate. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (2) Overtime rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 1.5, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    (3) Holiday rate. The total AMS grading, inspection, certification, classification, audit, or laboratory service program personnel direct pay divided by direct hours, which is then multiplied by the next year's percentage of cost of living increase and then multiplied by 2, plus the benefits rate, plus the operating rate, plus an allowance for bad debt. If applicable, travel expenses may also be added to the cost of providing the service.

    When possible, AMS is adjusting the rates to cover all of its expenses and to provide for reasonable operating reserves. Many of these rates were not adjusted for a number of years. In some cases fees are decreased due to efficiencies and cost cutting measures. Applying the formulas described above without consideration of the operating reserves, in some cases, would have resulted in a substantial increase in fees. Last year, AMS started the process of adjusting some of the rates to recover costs associated with providing these services. To avoid an undue burden on industry operations in these cases, AMS started to phase in some of the increases over a multi-year period. AMS continued this process and reassessed whether the fee rates and phase-in period were appropriate based on the formula and established operating reserve. Fees are being adjusted accordingly. Drawing upon the existing operating reserves will not affect AMS' ability to maintain the minimally required operating reserves.

    All rates are per-hour except when a per-unit cost is noted. The specific amounts in each rate calculation are available upon request from the specific AMS program.

    2017 Rates Regular Overtime Holiday Includes
  • travel costs
  • in rate
  • Start date
    Cotton Fees 7 CFR Part 27—Cotton Classification Under Cotton Futures Legislation Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 27.80—27.90 Costs of Classifications and Micronaire Cotton Standardization Certification for Futures Contract (Grading services for samples submitted by CCC-licensed samplers) $4.25/bale X August 1, 2017. Transfer of Certification Data to New Owner or Certified Warehouse (Electronic transfer performed) $0.20/bale or $5.00 per page minimum X August 1, 2017. 7 CFR Part 28—Cotton Classing, Testing, and Standards Subpart A—Regulations Under the United States Cotton Standards Act; §§ 28.115-28.126 Fees and Costs Subpart D—Cotton Classification and Market News Service for Producers; § 28.909 Costs; § 28.910 Classification of Samples and Issuance of Classification Data; § 28.911 Review Classification Cotton Grading Form 1: Grading Services for Producers (submitted by licensed sampler) $2.30/bale X July 1, 2017. Form 1 Review (new sample submitted by licensed sampler) $2.30/bale X July 1, 2017. Form A Determinations (sample submitted by licensed warehouse) $2.30/bale X July 1, 2017. Form C Determinations (sample submitted by non-licensed entity; bale sampled under USDA supervision) $2.30/bale July 1, 2017. Form D Determination (sample submitted by owner or agent; classification represents sample only) $2.30/bale X July 1, 2017. Foreign Growth Classification (sample of foreign growth cotton submitted by owner or agent; classification represents sample only) $6.00/sample X August 1, 2017. Arbitration (comparison of a sample to the official standards or a sample type) $6.00/sample X August 1, 2017. Practical Cotton Classing Exam (for non-USDA employees) Exam: $150/applicant X July 1, 2017. Reexamination: $130/applicant Special Sample Handling (return of samples per request) $0.50/sample X July 1, 2017. Electronic Copy of Classification Record $0.05/bale ($5.00/month minimum with any records received) X July 1, 2017. Form A Rewrite (reissuance of Form 1, Form A, or Futures Certification data or combination) $0.15/bale or $5.00/page minimum X August 1, 2017. Form R (reissuance of Form 1 classification only) $0.15/bale or $5.00/page minimum X July 1, 2017. International Instrument Level Assessment $4.00/sample X July 1, 2017. Dairy Fees 7 CFR Part 58—Grading and Inspection, General Specifications for Approved Plants and Standards for Grades of Dairy Products Subpart A—Regulations Governing the Inspection and Grading Services of Manufactured or Processed Dairy Products; §§ 58.38-58.46 Fees and Charges Continuous Resident Grading Service $76.00 $90.92 $107.24 X Oct 1, 2017. Non-resident and Intermittent Grading Service; State Graders; Equipment Review 82.00 96.76 116.64 X Oct 1, 2017. Non-resident Services 6 p.m.-6 a.m. (10 percent night differential) 90.20 106.44 128.32 X Oct 1, 2017. Export Certificate Services 82.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2017. Special Handling 41.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2017. Fax Charge 4.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2017. Derogation Application 123.00 N/A N/A Oct 1, 2017. Fruit and Vegetable Fees 7 CFR Part 51—Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Other Products (Inspection, Certification, and Standards) Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 51.37-51.44 Schedule of Fees and Charges at Destination Markets; § 51.45 Schedule of Fees and Charges at Shipping Point Areas Quality and Condition Inspections for Whole Lots $191.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Quality and Condition Half Lot or Condition-Only Inspections for Whole Lots $159.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Condition—Half Lot $146.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Quality and Condition or Condition-Only Inspections for Additional Lots of the Same Product $87.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Dockside Inspections—Each package weighing <30 lbs $0.044 per pkg. Oct 1, 2017. Dockside Inspections—Each package weighing >30 lbs $0.068 per pkg. Oct 1, 2017. Charge per Individual Product for Dockside Inspection $174.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Charge per Each Additional Lot of the Same Product $79.00 per lot Oct 1, 2017. Inspections for All Hourly Work $85.00 $112.00 $148.00 Oct 1, 2017. Audit Services $108.00 Oct 1, 2017. 7 CFR Part 52—Processed Fruits and Vegetables, Processed Products Thereof, and Other Processed Food Products Subpart—Regulations Governing Inspection and Certification; §§ 52.41-52.51 Fees and Charges Lot Inspections $75.00 $95.00 $116.00 X Oct 1, 2017. In-plant Inspections Under Annual Contract (year-round) 72.00 92.00 112.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Additional Graders (in-plant) or Less Than Year-Round 83.00 106.00 128.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Audit Services $108.00 Oct 1, 2017. Meat and Livestock Fees 7 CFR Part 54—Meats, Prepared Meats, and Meat Products (Grading, Certification, and Standards) Subpart A—Regulations; §§ 54.27-54.28 Charges for Service Commitment Grading $66.00 $83.00 $100.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Non-commitment Grading 87.00 103.00 120.00 Oct 1, 2017. Night Differential (6 p.m.-6 a.m.) 73.00 91.00 109.00 Oct 1, 2017. 7 CFR Part 62—Livestock, Meat and Other Agricultural Commodities (Quality Systems Verification Programs) Subpart A—Quality Systems Verification Definitions; § 62.300 Fees and Other Costs for Service Auditing Activities $108.00 Oct 1, 2017. 7 CFR Part 75—Regulations for Inspection and Certification of Quality of Agricultural and Vegetable Seeds § 75.41 General Laboratory Testing $58.00 $86.00 $115.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Administrative Fee $14.50 per certificate Oct 1, 2017. Poultry Fees 7 CFR Part 56—Voluntary Grading of Shell Eggs Subpart A—Grading of Shell Eggs; §§ 56.45-56.54 Fees and Charges 7 CFR Part 70—Voluntary Grading of Poultry and Rabbit Products Subpart A-Grading of Poultry and Rabbit Products; §§ 70.70-70.78 Fees and Charges Resident Service (in-plant) 1 $48.00 2 $56.00 2 $81.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Resident, Night Differential (6 p.m.-6 a.m.) 2 51.00 2 62.00 2 88.00 X Oct 1, 2017. Resident, Sunday Differential 2 58.00 2 69.00 N/A X Oct 1, 2017. Resident, Sunday and Night Differential 2 63.00 2 72.00 N/A X Oct 1, 2017. Fee Service (non-scheduled) 78.00 97.00 117.00 Oct 1, 2017. Audit Service $108.00 Oct 1, 2017. Science and Technology Fees 7 CFR Part 91—Services and General Information (Science and Technology) Subpart I—Fees and Charges; §§ 91.37-91.45 Laboratory Testing Services $88.00 $104.00 $120.00 Oct 1, 2017. Laboratory Approval Services 3 185.00 211.00 234.00 X Jan 1, 2018. Tobacco Fees 7 CFR Part 29—Tobacco Inspection Subpart A—Policy Statement and Regulations Governing the Extension of Tobacco Inspection and Price Support Services to New Markets and to Additional Sales on Designated Markets Subpart B—Regulations; §§ 29.123-29.129 Fees and Charges; § 29.500 Fees and charges for inspection and acceptance of imported tobacco Subpart F—Policy Statement and Regulations Governing the Identification and Certification of Non-quota Tobacco Produced and Marketed in Quota Area; § 29.9251 Fees and Charges Domestic Permissive Inspection and Certification (re-grading of domestic tobacco for processing plants, retesting of imported tobacco, and grading tobacco for research stations.) $55.00 $64.00 $72.00 July 1, 2017. Export Permissive Inspection and Certification (grading of domestic tobacco for manufacturers and dealers for duty drawback consideration) $0.0025/pound X July 1, 2017. Grading for Risk Management Agency (for Tobacco Crop Insurance Quality Adjustment determinations) $0.015/pound X July 1, 2017. Pesticide Test Sampling (collection of certified tobacco sample and shipment to AMS National Science Laboratory for testing) $0.0065/kg or $0.0029/pound X July 1, 2017. Pesticide Retest Sampling (collection of certified tobacco sample from a previously sampled lot for re-testing at the AMS National Science Laboratory; fee includes shipping) $115.00/sample and $55.00/hour X July 1, 2017. Standards Course (training by USDA-certified instructor on tobacco grading procedures) $1,250.00/person July 1, 2017. Import Inspection and Certification (grading of imported tobacco for manufacturers and dealers) $0.0170/kg or $0.0080/pound X July 1, 2017. 1 Administrative charges are applied in addition to hourly rates for resident service as specified in Part 56, Subpart A, § 56.52(a)(4); Part 56, Subpart A, § 56.54(a)(2); Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.76(a)(2); Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.77(a)(4) and Part 70, Subpart A, § 70.77(a)(5). 3 Travel costs outside the United States will be added to the fee, if applicable.
    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 15b; 7 U.S.C. 473a-b; 7 U.S.C. 55 and 61; 7 U.S.C. 51-65; 7 U.S.C. 471-476; 7 U.S.C. 511, 511s; and 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Bruce Summers, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09350 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 2017.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 8, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

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

    Food and Nutrition Service

    Title: Child Nutrition Program Operations Study II (CN-OPS II).

    OMB Control Number: 0584-0607.

    Summary of Collection: The objective of the Child Nutrition Program Operations Study II (CN-OPS-II) is to collect timely data on policies, administrative, and operational issues on the Child Nutrition Programs (CNP). The study will help FNS obtain general descriptive data on the child nutrition programs' characteristics needed to respond to questions concerning those programs; obtain data related to program administration for designing and revising program regulations, managing resources, and reporting requirements; and obtain data related to program operations to help FNS develop and provide training and technical assistance to the School Food Authorities and State Agencies responsible for administering these programs.

    Need and Use of the Information: This study will survey School Food Authority and State Child Nutrition directors. FNS will use the data to understand how recent and proposed legislation, regulations, policies, and initiatives change the operations in the child nutrition programs and to describe trends in the programs' participation and operational practices, as well as aspects of particular operations.

    Description of Respondents: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents: 3,379.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,099.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09396 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 2017.

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

    Comments regarding this information collection received by June 8, 2017 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725—17th Street NW., Washington, DC, 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

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

    National Agriculture Statistics Service

    Title: Agricultural Surveys Program.

    OMB Control Number: 0535-0213.

    Summary of Collection: National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) primary functions are to prepare and issue state and national estimates of crop and livestock production and collect information on related environmental and economic factors. The Agricultural Surveys Program is a series of surveys that contains basic agricultural data from farmers and ranchers throughout the Nation for preparing agricultural estimates and forecasts. The surveys results provide the foundation for setting livestock and poultry inventory numbers. Estimates derived from the surveys supply information needed by farmers to make decisions for both short and long-term planning. The General authority for these data collection is granted under U.S. Code Title 7, Section 2204(a). Individually identifiable data collected under this authority are governed by Section 1770 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended, 7 U.S.C, 2276, which requires USDA to afford strict confidentially to non-aggregated data provided by respondents.

    Need and Use of the Information: The surveys provide the basis for estimates of the current season's crop and livestock production and supplies of grain in storage. Crop and livestock statistics help develop a stable economic atmosphere and reduce risk for production, marketing, and distribution operations. These commodities affect the well being of the nation's farmers, commodities markets, and national and global agricultural policy. Users of agricultural statistics are farm organizations, agribusiness, state and national farm policy makers, and foreign buyers of agricultural products but the primary user of the statistical information is the producer. Agricultural statistics are also used to plan and administer other related federal and state programs in such areas as school lunch program, conservation, foreign trade, education, and recreation. Collecting the information less frequent would eliminate needed data to keep the government and agricultural industry abreast of changes at the state and national levels.

    Description of Respondents: Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 512,500.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Quarterly; Semi-annually; Monthly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 168,342.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09389 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request May 4, 2017.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by June 8, 2017. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

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

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Pistachios Grown in California, Arizona and New Mexico.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0215.

    Summary of Collection: The Pistachio Marketing Order, (7 CFR part 983), covering pistachios grown in California, Arizona and New Mexico is established and regulated under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, Secs. 1-19, 48 Stat. 31, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601-674), herein referred to as the Act. The order regulates the handling of pistachios, authorizes grade and size requirements, as well as a requirement for aflatoxin testing on domestic shipments only. The Secretary is authorized to oversee the order operations and issue regulations recommended by representatives from the Pistachio Committee.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Agricultural Marketing Service has developed forms as a convenience for handlers and producers who are required to file certain information with the Committee relating to pistachio supplies, shipments, dispositions, and other information needed to effectively implement the requirements of the order and carry out the purposes of the Act. Collecting data less frequently would eliminate the Secretary's ability to administer the order.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit; Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 1,070.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: On occasion; Weekly; Monthly; Quarterly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 470.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0268.

    Action: Renewal and Extension of a Previously Approved Collection.

    Summary of Collection: A Christmas Tree Promotion, Research and Information Order created under the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-127, 110 Stat. 1032, April 4, 1996, 7 U.S.C. 744-7425) requires collection of information to carry out the program. The program includes projects relating to research, information, advertising, sales promotion, market development and production research to assist, improve, or promote the marketing, distribution, competitive position and stimulate sales of Christmas trees.

    Need and Use of the Information: The Christmas tree program will be administered by the Christmas Tree Promotion Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture and financed by a mandatory assessment on producers and importers of fresh cut Christmas trees. The program will provide for an exemption for producers and importers that cut and sell or import fewer than 500 Christmas trees annually. The forms covered under this collection require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program, and their use is essential to carry out the intent of the Order.

    Description of Respondents: Producers and Importers.

    Number of Respondents: 12,455.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually; Recordkeeping.

    Total Burden Hours: 10,700.

    Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09313 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0035] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi From Chile AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of fresh baby kiwi from Chile into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0035.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0035, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0035 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of fresh baby kiwi from Chile, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Fresh Baby Kiwi From Chile.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0374.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the importation of certain fruits and vegetables in accordance with the regulations in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-76).

    Under these regulations, fresh baby kiwi from Chile may be imported into the continental United States under certain conditions, as listed in 7 CFR 319.56-53, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. The regulations require information collection activities, including an operational workplan, low prevalence production site certification, production site registration, phytosanitary inspections, labeling of containers, identification of fruit in shipping documentation to specify production sites and packing sheds where fruit was processed, and a phytosanitary certificate.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.02 hours per response.

    Respondents: Growers and shippers of fresh baby kiwi from Chile and the national plant protection organization of Chile.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 5.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 8,243.6.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 41,218.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 849 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09352 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2017-0036] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Tomatoes With Stems From the Republic of Korea AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0036.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2017-0036, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2017-0036 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the regulations for the importation of tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea, contact Dr. Robert Baca, Assistant Director, Permitting and Compliance Coordination, Compliance and Environmental Coordination Branch, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 150, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2292. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Tomatoes With Stems From the Republic of Korea.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0371.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: Under the Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service regulates the importation of certain fruits and vegetables in accordance with the regulations contained in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56 through 319.56-76).

    Under the regulations, tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea may be imported into the United States under certain conditions, as listed in 7 CFR 319.56-52, to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These regulations require information collection activities including inspection, registered pest-exclusionary structures, recordkeeping, trapping, and a phytosanitary certificate with an additional declaration stating that the tomatoes were produced in accordance with the regulations.

    We are asking the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.589 hours per response.

    Respondents: Growers, importers, and exporters of tomatoes with stems from the Republic of Korea; and the national plant protection organization of the Republic of Korea.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 3.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 31.7.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 95.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 56 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of May 2017. Michael C. Gregoire, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09353 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Notice of Request for Public Comments and Public Hearing on Section 232 National Security Investigation of Imports of Aluminum AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for public comments and public hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. This investigation has been initiated under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended.

    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or other information pertinent to the investigation to the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

    The Department of Commerce will also hold a public hearing on the investigation on June 22, 2017, in Washington, DC.

    This notice identifies the issues on which the Department is interested in obtaining the public's views. It also sets forth the procedures for public participation in the hearing.

    DATES:

    Comments may be submitted at any time but must be received by June 29, 2017. The hearing will be held on June 22, 2017, at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments: Send written comments to Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1093, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected]

    Public hearing: Send requests to speak and written summaries of the oral presentations to Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 1093, Washington, DC 20230 or by email to [email protected], by June 15, 2017. Any person, whether presenting or not, may submit a written statement through June 29, 2017—seven days after the hearing date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brad Botwin, Director, Industrial Studies, Office of Technology Evaluation, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4060, [email protected] For more information about the section 232 program, including the regulations and the text of previous investigations, see www.bis.doc.gov/232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 26, 2017, the Secretary of Commerce initiated an investigation under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1862), to determine the effects on the national security of imports of aluminum. On April 27, 2017, the President signed a memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce (“Secretary”) to proceed expeditiously in conducting his investigation and submit a report on his findings to the President. The President further directed that if the Secretary finds that aluminum is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust aluminum imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

    Written Comments

    This investigation is being undertaken in accordance with part 705 of the National Security Industrial Base Regulations (15 CFR parts 700 to 709) (“NSIBR”). Interested parties are invited to submit written comments, data, analyses, or information pertinent to this investigation to the Office of Technology Evaluation, U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”), no later than June 29, 2017.

    The Department is particularly interested in comments and information directed to the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the regulations as they affect national security, including the following: (a) Quantity of or other circumstances related to the importation of aluminum; (b) Domestic production and productive capacity needed for aluminum to meet projected national defense requirements; (c) Existing and anticipated availability of human resources, products, raw materials, production equipment, and facilities to produce aluminum; (d) Growth requirements of the aluminum industry to meet national defense requirements and/or requirements to assure such growth; (e) The impact of foreign competition on the economic welfare of the aluminum industry; (f) The displacement of any domestic aluminum causing substantial unemployment, decrease in the revenues of government, loss of investment or specialized skills and productive capacity, or other serious effects; (g) Relevant factors that are causing or will cause a weakening of our national economy; and (h) Any other relevant factors.

    Material that is business confidential information will be exempted from public disclosure as provided for by §  705.6 of the regulations. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion of the submission, then file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential submission which can be placed in the public file. Communications from agencies of the United States Government will not be made available for public inspection. Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments.

    The Bureau of Industry and Security does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view the Bureau's Web page, which can be found at https://efoia.bis.doc.gov/ (see “Electronic FOIA” heading). If requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call (202) 482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

    Public Hearing

    Consistent with the interest of the U.S. Department of Commerce in soliciting public comments on issues affecting U.S. industry and national security, the Department is holding a public hearing as part of the investigation. The hearing will assist the Department in determining whether imports of aluminum threaten to impair the national security and in recommending remedies if such a threat is found to exist. Public comments at the hearing should address the criteria listed in §  705.4 of the NSIBR as they affect national security described above. The hearing will be held on June 22, 2017, at the U.S. Department of Commerce auditorium, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. The hearing will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and conclude at 1:00 p.m. local time.

    Procedure for Requesting Participation

    The Department encourages interested public participants to present their views orally at the hearing. Any person wishing to make an oral presentation at the hearing must submit a written request to the Department of Commerce at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The request to participate in the hearing must be accompanied by a copy of a summary of the oral presentation. The written request and summary must be received by the Department no later than Thursday, June 15, 2017. In addition, the request to speak should contain (1) the name and address of the person requesting to make a presentation; (2) a daytime phone number where the person who would be making the oral presentation may be contacted before the hearing; (3) the organization or company they represent; and (4) an email address.

    Please note that the submission of comments for presentation at the public hearing is separate from the request for written comments. Since it may be necessary to limit the number of persons making presentations, the written request to participate in the public hearing should describe the individual's interest in the hearing and, where appropriate, explain why the individual is a proper representative of a group or class of persons that has such an interest. If all interested parties cannot be accommodated at the hearing, the summaries of the oral presentations will be used to allocate speaking time and to ensure that a full range of comments is heard.

    Each person selected to make a presentation will be notified by the Department of Commerce no later than 8:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on Friday, June 16, 2017. The Department will arrange the presentation times for the speakers. Persons selected to be heard are requested to bring 20 copies of their oral presentation and of all exhibits to the hearing site on the day of the hearing. All such material must be of a size consistent with ease of handling, transportation, and filing. While large exhibits may be used during a hearing, copies of such exhibits in reduced size must be provided to the panel. Written submissions by persons not selected to make presentations will be made part of the public record of the proceeding. Any person, whether presenting or not, may submit a written statement through June 29, 2017—seven days after the hearing date. Confidential business information may not be submitted at a public hearing. In the event confidential business information is submitted, it will be handled according to the same procedures applicable to such information provided in the course of an investigation. See 15 CFR 705.6. The hearing will be recorded.

    Copies of the requests to participate in the public hearing and the transcript of the hearing will be maintained on the Bureau of Industry and Security's Web page, which can be found at http://www.bis.doc.gov (see Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) link at the bottom of the page). If the requesters cannot access the Web site, they may call (202) 482-0795 for assistance. The records related to this assessment are made accessible in accordance with the regulations published in part 4 of title 15 of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR 4.1 et seq.).

    Conduct of the Hearing

    The Department reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at the hearing, to schedule their respective presentations, and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the hearing. Each speaker will be limited to 10 minutes, and comments must be directly related to the criteria listed in 15 CFR 705.4 of the regulations. Attendees will be seated on a first-come, first-served basis.

    A Department official will be designated to preside at the hearing. The presiding officer shall determine all procedural matters during the hearing. Representatives from the Department, and other U.S. Government agencies as appropriate, will make up the hearing panel. This will be a fact-finding proceeding; it will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type hearing. Only members of the hearing panel may ask questions, and there will be no cross-examination of persons presenting statements. However, questions submitted to the presiding officer in writing may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be posed to the presenter. No formal rules of evidence will apply to the hearing.

    Any further procedural rules for the proper conduct of the hearing will be announced by the presiding officer.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be received by the Department of Commerce no later than Monday, June 12, 2017, at the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09328 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-823] Welded Line Pipe From Turkey: Rescission, in Part, of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    On February 13, 2017, the Department of Commerce (Department) initiated an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey) for nineteen companies. Based on timely withdrawal of requests for review, we are now rescinding this administrative review with respect to 17 of these companies.

    DATES:

    Effective May 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley or Whitley Herndon, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4987 or (202) 482-6274, respectively.

    Background

    In December 2016 and January 2017, the Department received multiple timely requests to conduct an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey. Based upon these requests, on February 13, 2017, in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department published a notice of initiation of an administrative review with respect to nineteen companies for the period March 20, 2015, through December 31, 2015.1

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 82 FR 10457, 10465 (February 13, 2017).

    On March 2, 2017, Maverick Tube Corporation (Maverick), Stupp Corporation, a division of Stupp Bros., Inc. (Stupp Corp.) and American Cast Iron Pipe Company (ACIPCO) timely withdrew their requests for a review of all the companies with the exception of two companies, Borusan Istikbal Ticaret and Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.2

    2See Letter from Maverick to the Department, “Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated March 2, 2017. See also Letter from Stupp Corp. and ACIPCO to the Department, “Welded Line Pipe from the Republic of Turkey: Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated March 2, 2017.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if a party who requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. All the aforementioned withdrawal requests were timely submitted, and no other interested party requested an administrative review of these particular companies. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review of the countervailing duty order on welded line pipe from Turkey, in part, with respect to the seventeen companies named in the appendix.

    Assessment

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

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751 and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix Companies for Which the Administrative Review Is Rescinded Cayirova Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. Cimtas Boru Imalatlari ve Ticaret, Ltd. Sti. Emek Boru Makina Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Erbosan Erciyas Tube Industry and Trade Co. Inc. Erciyas Celik Boru Sanayii A.S. Guven Celik Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. Has Altinyagmur celik Boru Sanayii ve Ticaret Ltd. Sti. HDM Steel Pipe Industry & Trade Co. Ltd. Metalteks Celik Urunleri Sanayii MMZ Onur Boru Profil Uretim Sanayii ve Ticaret A.S. Noksel Steel Pipe Co. Inc. Ozbal Celik Boru Toscelik Profile and Sheet Industry, Co. Tosyali Dis Ticaret A.S. Umran Celik Boru Sanayii YMS Pipe & Metal Sanayii A.S. Yucelboru Ihracat Ithalat Pazzarlam
    [FR Doc. 2017-09356 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-583-803] Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing From Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Taiwan (steel tubing) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Further, the magnitude of the margin of dumping that are likely to prevail is identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective May 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Catherine Cartsos or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1757 and (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 27, 1989, the Department published the AD order on steel tubing from Taiwan.1 On January 3, 2017, the Department published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset review of the AD order on steel tubing,2 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    1Antidumping Duty Order; Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Taiwan, 54 FR 12467 (March 27, 1989).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 82 FR 84 (January 3, 2017) (Initiation).

    On January 10, 2017, the Department received a notice of intent to participate on behalf of Atlas Tube, Bull Moose Tube, and Searing Industries (collectively, the domestic interested parties) within the 15-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). The domestic interested parties claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as manufacturers in the United States of a domestic like product.

    On February 2, 2017, the Department received a complete substantive response to the Initiation from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day period, specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the AD order on steel tubing from Taiwan.

    3See Letter from domestic interested parties regarding “Light-Walled Rectangular Welded Carbon Steel Pipe and Tube from Taiwan, Fourth Sunset Review: Substantive Response to Notice of Initiation,” dated February 2, 2017.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by the order is light-walled welded carbon steel pipe and tube of rectangular (including square) cross-section having a wall thickness of less than 0.156 inch. This merchandise is classified under item number 7306.61.5000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS). It was formerly classified under item number 7306.60.5000. The HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written product description remains dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the order is revoked, are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.4 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn.

    4See Memorandum from Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary Gary Taverman to Acting Assistant Secretary Ronald K. Lorentzen entitled, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Light-Walled Welded Rectangular Carbon Steel Tubing from Taiwan,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Final Results of Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the AD order on steel tubing from Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the margin of dumping likely to prevail if the AD order is revoked would be up to 40.97 percent.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as the only reminder to the parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of propriety information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 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 subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    We are issuing and publishing the final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary For Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09355 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with March anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

    DATES:

    Effective May 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with March anniversary dates.

    All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

    Notice of No Sales

    If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://access.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

    1See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    Respondent Selection

    In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of this review. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

    In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

    Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

    Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

    To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

    All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name,3 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 30 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

    2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

    3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

    4 We inadvertently included Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (misspelled as Electrolux Hone Products, Inc.) in the initiation notice that published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17188).

    5 The company listed about was misspelled in the initiation notice that published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17188). The correct spelling of the company name is listed in this notice.

    6 On November 23, 2016, the Department determined that The Navigator Company, S.A., is the successor-in-interest to Portucel S.A. See Certain Uncoated Paper from Portugal: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 81 FR 84555 (November 23, 2016).

    7 We inadvertently included LG Electronics USA, Inc. in the initiation notice that published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17188).

    For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

    Initiation of Reviews

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than March 31, 2018.

    Period to be
  • reviewed
  • Antidumping Duty Proceedings Brazil: Certain Uncoated Paper A-351-842 8/27/15-2/28/17 Suzano Papel e Celulose S.A. Indonesia: Certain Uncoated Paper A-560-828 8/26/15-2/28/17 PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, and APRIL Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively APRIL). PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk and PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk (collectively APP). Mexico: Large Residential Washers 4 A-201-842 2/1/16-1/31/17 Electrolux Home Products Corp. NV.5 Portugal: Certain Uncoated Paper A-471-807 8/26/15-2/28/17 Portucel S.A./The Navigator Company, S.A.6 Republic of Korea: Large Residential Washers 7 A-580-868 2/1/16-1/31/17 Spain: Stainless Steel Bar A-469-805 3/1/16-2/28/17 Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L. ./Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa S.L.8 Thailand: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes A-549-502 3/1/16-2/28/17 Pacific Pipe Public Company Limited. Saha Thai Steel Pipe (Public) Company, Ltd. Thai Premium Pipe Co., Ltd. The People's Republic of China: Certain Tissue Paper Products A-570-894 3/1/16-2/28/17 Chung Rhy Special Paper Mill Co., Ltd. Global Key, Inc. The People's Republic of China: Glycine A-570-836 3/1/16-2/28/17 Avid Organics Pvt. Ltd. Kumar Industries. Rudraa International. The People's Republic of China: Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 9 A-570-929 2/1/16-1/31/17 Fangda Group (The Fangda Group consists of Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd., Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co., Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd., and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd). Countervailing Duty Proceedings Indonesia: Certain Uncoated Paper C-560-829 6/29/15-12/31/16 PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, and APRIL. Fine Paper Macao Offshore Limited (collectively APRIL). PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk and PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk (collectively APP). Republic of Korea: Cut-To-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 10 C-580-837 1/1/16-12/31/16 Turkey: Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and Tubes C-489-502 1/1/16-12/31/16 Borusan Istikbal Ticaret T.A.S. Borusan Mannesnamm Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. Suspension Agreements None.
    Duty Absorption Reviews

    During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

    8 On December 2, 2016, the Department determined that Sidenor Aceros Especiales S.L. is the successor-in-interest to Gerdau Aceros Especiales Europa S.L. See Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Stainless Steel Bar from Spain, 81 FR 87021 (December 2, 2016).

    9 The company listed about was misspelled in the initiation notice that published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17188). The correct spelling of the company name is listed in this notice.

    10 In the initiation notice that published on April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17188) the POR for the above referenced case was incorrect. The period listed above is the correct POR for this case.

    Gap Period Liquidation

    For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

    Administrative Protective Orders and Letters of Appearance

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    Factual Information Requirements

    The Department's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.11 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 12 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    11See section 782(b) of the Act.

    12See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. See 19 CFR 351.302. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

    These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09301 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-057] Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Petition

    On April 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received a countervailing duty (CVD) petition concerning imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (PRC), filed in proper form, on behalf of Waterloo Industries Inc. (the petitioner).1 The petitioner is a domestic producer of tool chests.2 The CVD petition was accompanied by antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of tool chests from the PRC and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (April 11, 2017) (the Petition).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1.

    On April 13 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the Petition.3 On April 13 and 20, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petition.4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 18 and 21, 2017.5 On April 27, 3017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.6

    3See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 13, 2017) (clarifying the scope of the imported merchandise that the petitioner intends to cover).

    4See letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on Volume IV of the Petition (April 13, 2017); see also letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on general issues (April 13, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); and letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on Volume IV (April 20, 2017).

    5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questionnaire Concerning Volume IV” (April 18, 2017); see also letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's 2nd Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 18, 2017) (General Issues 2nd Amendment); and letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's Response to Supplemental Questionnaire Concerning Volume IV” (April 21, 2017).

    6See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's 3rd Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 27, 2017) (General Issues 3rd Amendment).

    In accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that the Government of the PRC (GOC) is providing countervailable subsidies, within the meaning of sections 701 and 771(5) of the Act with respect to imports of tool chests from the PRC, and that imports of tool chests are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 702(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(b), for those alleged programs on which we are initiating a CVD investigation, the Petition is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the CVD investigation that the petitioner is requesting.7

    7See “Determination of Industry Support for the Petition” section, below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petition was filed on April 11, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2), the period of investigation is January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016.8

    8See 19 CFR 351.204(b)(2).

    Scope of the Investigation

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

    Comments on Scope of the Investigation

    During our review of the Petition, we issued questions to, and received responses from, the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petition would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.9

    9See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues 2nd Amendment; and General Issues 3rd Amendment.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations,10 we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., scope). The Department will consider all comments received from interested parties and, if necessary, will consult with the interested parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information,11 all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaire, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 22, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 1, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.12 All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

    10See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    11See 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigation be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigation may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the record of the concurrent AD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement & Compliance's Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).13 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    13See 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements); see also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011), for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx, and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Consultations

    Pursuant to section 702(b)(4)(A) of the Act, the Department notified representatives of the GOC of the receipt of the Petition, and provided them the opportunity for consultations with respect to the CVD Petition.14 In response to the Department's letter, the GOC requested that consultations be held.15 Such consultations were held on April 26, 2017.16 The invitation letter and memorandum regarding the consultations are on file electronically via ACCESS.

    14See Letter to the embassy of the PRC from the Department “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China” (April 11, 2017).

    15See Letter to the Department from the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China “Consultation Request for Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Tool Chest and Cabinets” (April 18, 2017).

    16See Department Memorandum “Countervailing Duty Petition on Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China: GOC Consultations” (April 26, 2017).

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petition

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) Poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers, as a whole, of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,17 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.18

    17See section 771(10) of the Act.

    18See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

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

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigation. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that tool chests, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.19

    19 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Countervailing Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China (PRC CVD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II). This checklist is dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 702(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petition with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.20 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from Metal Box International, stating that the company supports the Petition and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.21 The petitioner identifies itself and Metal Box International as the companies constituting the U.S. tool chests industry and states that there are no other known producers of tool chests in the United States; therefore, the Petition is supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.22

    20See Volume I of the Petition, at 3 and Exhibit GEN-1.

    21Id., at 3 and Exhibit GEN-2.

    22Id., at 2-3 and Exhibits GEN-1 and GEN-2.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petition and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petition.23 First, the Petition established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).24 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.25 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 702(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petition account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petition.26 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petition was filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 702(b)(1) of the Act.

    23See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    24See section 702(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    25See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    26Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petition on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act, and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the CVD investigation that it is requesting that the Department initiate.27

    27Id.

    Injury Test

    Because the PRC is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, section 701(a)(2) of the Act applies to this investigation. Accordingly, the ITC must determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from the PRC materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that imports of the subject merchandise are benefitting from countervailable subsidies and that such imports are causing, or threaten to cause, material injury to the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product. In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.28

    28See Volume I of the Petition, at 17-19 and Exhibits GEN-2, GEN-7, and GEN-11.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining production and shipments; declining net sales; and deteriorating financial performance.29 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.30

    29See Volume I of the Petition, at 12-26 and Exhibits GEN-2, GEN-6 through GEN-9, and GEN-11 through GEN-15.

    30See PRC CVD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

    Initiation of CVD Investigation

    Section 702(b)(1) of the Act requires the Department to initiate a CVD investigation whenever an interested party files a CVD petition on behalf of an industry that (1) alleges the elements necessary for an imposition of a duty under section 701(a) of the Act and (2) is accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting the allegations.

    The petitioner alleges that producers/exporters of tool chests in the PRC benefited from countervailable subsidies bestowed by the GOC. The Department examined the Petition and finds that it complies with the requirements of section 702(b)(1) of the Act. Therefore, in accordance with section 702(b)(1) of the Act, we are initiating a CVD investigation to determine whether manufacturers, producers, and/or exporters of tool chests from the PRC receive countervailable subsidies from the GOC.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.31 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.32 The amendments to sections 776 and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to this CVD investigation.33

    31See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    32See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015). The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    33Id., at 46794-95.

    Subsidy Allegations

    Based on our review of the Petition, we find that there is sufficient information to initiate a CVD investigation on 17 of the 18 alleged programs. For a full discussion of the basis for our decision to initiate or not initiate on each program, see the PRC CVD Initiation Checklist. A public version of the initiation checklist for this investigation is available on ACCESS.

    In accordance with section 703(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determination in this investigation no later than 65 days after the date of initiation.

    Respondent Selection

    The Department normally selects respondents in a CVD investigation using U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) entry data. However, for this investigation, the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) numbers the subject merchandise would enter under are basket categories containing many products unrelated to tool chests, and the HTSUS numbers allow for the reporting of differing units of quantity. Therefore, we cannot rely on CBP entry data in selecting respondents. Instead, for this investigation, the Department will request quantity and value (Q&V) information from known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petition. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement & Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    Producers/exporters of tool chests from the PRC that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by the relevant PRC exporters/producers no later than May 11, 2017. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petition

    In accordance with section 702(b)(4)(A)(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), a copy of the public version of the Petition has been provided to the GOC via ACCESS. Because of the particularly large number of producers/exporters identified in the Petition, the Department considers the service of the public version of the Petition to the foreign producers/exporters satisfied by delivery of the public version to the government of the PRC, consistent with 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 702(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petition was filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of tool chests from the PRC are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, a U.S. industry.34 A negative ITC determination will result in the investigation being terminated; 35 otherwise, this investigation will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    34See section 703(a)(2) of the Act.

    35See section 703(a)(1) of the Act.

    Submission of Factual Information

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

    Extension of Time Limits Regulation

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under 19 CFR 351.301 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this investigation.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.36 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.37 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with the applicable revised certification requirements.

    36See section 782(b) of the Act.

    37See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under Administrative Protective Order (APO) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in this investigation should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 702 and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of this investigation covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People's Republic of China (the PRC). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:

    (1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;

    (2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;

    (3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;

    (4) a drawer depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and

    (5) prepackaged for retail sale.

    For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit, i.e., each individual top chest, intermediate top chest, tool cabinet, side cabinet, storage unit, mobile work bench, and work station.

    Prepackaged for retail sale means the units are packaged in a cardboard box or other container suitable for retail display and sale. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC but assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC that are later found to be assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (e.g., stainless steel), painted, powder coated, galvanized, or otherwise coated for corrosion protection or aesthetic appearance.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.

    Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (e.g., bolts) and instructions for assembling them onto the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate tool chest which rests on the base tool cabinet. Smaller top chests typically have handles on the sides, while the larger top chests typically lack handles. Intermediate tool chests are designed to fit on top of the floor standing tool cabinet and to be used underneath the top tool chest. Although they may be packaged or used separately from the tool cabinet, intermediate chests are designed to be used in conjunction with tool cabinets. The intermediate chests typically do not have handles. The intermediate and top chests may have the capability of being bolted together.

    Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.

    Excluded from the scope of the investigation are tool boxes, chests and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances. Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are portable metal tool boxes. Portable metal tool boxes have each of the following characteristics: (1) Fewer than three drawers; (2) a handle on the top that allows the tool box to be carried by hand; and (3) a width that is 21 inches or less; and depth (front to back) not exceeding 10 inches.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:

    (1) Having a body that is over 60 inches wide; or

    (2) having each of the following physical characteristics:

    (a) A body made of steel that is 0.055″ or more in thickness;

    (b) all drawers over 21″ deep;

    (c) all drawer slides rated for 200 lbs. or more; and

    (d) not prepackaged for retail sale.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are work benches with fewer than two drawers. Excluded work benches have a solid top working surface, fewer than two drawers, are supported by legs and have no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigation are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.

    Merchandise subject to the investigation is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030 and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09371 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-815, A-533-806, C-533-807] Sulfanilic Acid From India and the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of determinations by the Department of Commerce (Department) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on sulfanilic acid from the People's Republic of China (PRC) and India and the countervailing duty (CVD) order on sulfanilic acid from India would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.

    DATES:

    Effective May 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mandy Mallott (India and PRC AD Orders), John Conniff (India CVD Order), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430 or (202) 482-1009, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On September 1, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset reviews of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from the PRC and India and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act).1

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 81 FR 60386 (September 1, 2016) (“Notice of Initiation”).

    As a result of its reviews, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(b) of the Act, the Department determined that revocation of the AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and a countervailable subsidy, and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins and net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail should the orders be revoked.2

    2See Sulfanilic Acid from India and the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Fourth Sunset Reviews of Antidumping Duty Orders, 82 FR 1321 (January 5, 2017); Sulfanilic Acid From India: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 82 FR 1693 (January 6, 2017).

    On April 21, 2017, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the existing AD orders on sulfanilic acid from India and the PRC and the CVD order on sulfanilic acid from India would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.3

    3See USITC Publication USITC Publication 4680, April 2017, Sulfanilic Acid from China and India: Inv. Nos. 701-TA-318 and 731-TA-538 and 561 (Fourth Review). See also Sulfanilic Acid from China and India, 82 FR 18776 (April 21, 2017).

    Scope of the Orders

    The merchandise covered by the AD and CVD orders is all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.

    Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.

    Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.

    Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.

    Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of these orders is dispositive.4

    4 In response to a request from 3V Corporation, on May 5, 1999, the Department clarified that sodium sulfanilate processed in Italy from sulfanilic acid produced in India is within the scope of the AD and CVD orders on sulfanilic acid from India. See Notice of Scope Rulings, 65 FR 41957 (July 7, 2000).

    Continuation of the Orders

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

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

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09302 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-823-805] Silicomanganese From Ukraine: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

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

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on silicomanganese from Ukraine. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016. The review covers two exporters of the subject merchandise, PJSC Zaporozhye Ferroalloy Plant (ZFP), and PJSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant (NFP). The Department preliminarily finds, based on the application of adverse facts available, that subject merchandise has been sold in the United States at prices below normal value during the POR.

    DATES:

    Effective May 9, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this order is silicomanganese from Ukraine. Most silicomanganese is currently classifiable under subheading 7202.30.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Some silicomanganese may also currently be classifiable under HTSUS subheading 7202.99.8040. While the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Memorandum from Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Results in the Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Silicomanganese from Ukraine; 2015-2016,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. A list of the topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/.

    Adverse Facts Available

    Because the mandatory respondents ZFP and NFP failed to provide requested information, we preliminarily determine to apply adverse facts available (AFA) to these companies, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For further discussion, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Results of Administrative Review

    We preliminary determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period of August 1, 2015, through July 31, 2016:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • PJSC Zaporozhye Ferroalloy Plant 163.00 PJSC Nikopol Ferroalloy Plant 163.00
    Disclosure and Public Comment

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results of review in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily determined each respondent's weighted-average dumping margin based on AFA, as described in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, there are no calculations to disclose. This meets our regulatory obligation.

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.2 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs.3 Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4

    2See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).

    3See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs.

    All documents submitted to the Department must normally be filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.5

    5See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. For the final results, if we continue to rely on adverse facts available to establish ZFP's and NFP's weighted-average dumping margins we will instruct CBP to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 163.00 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were exported by ZFP and NFP. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for subject merchandise exported by ZFP and NFP will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 163.00 percent, the all-others rate established in the investigation.6 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    6See Suspension Agreement on Silicomanganese from Ukraine; Termination of Suspension Agreement and Notice of Antidumping Duty Order, 66 FR 43838 (August 21, 2001) (clarifying that the “Ukraine-Wide Rate” of 163 percent applies to all producers and exporters of subject silicomanganese not specifically listed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicomanganese from Ukraine, 59 FR 62711 (December 6, 1994) (where an AFA rate of 163 percent was applied to ZFP and NFP, the mandatory respondents in the original investigation).

    Notification to Importers

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

    Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department is issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Use of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences 5. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2017-09354 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-056, A-552-821] Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

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

    DATES:

    Effective Date: May 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Minoo Hatten at (202) 482-1690, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petitions

    On April 11, 2017, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of certain tool chests and cabinets (tool chests) from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam), filed in proper form on behalf of Waterloo Industries Inc. (the petitioner).1 The AD petitions were accompanied by a countervailing duty (CVD) petition for tool chests from the PRC. The petitioner is a domestic producer of tool chests.2

    1See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties” (April 11, 2017) (the Petitions).

    2See Volume I of the Petitions, at 1.

    On April 13 2017, the petitioner filed an amendment to the Petitions.3 On April 13, 2017, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.4 The petitioner filed responses to these requests on April 18 and 20, 2017.5 On April 27, 2017, the petitioner filed an additional amendment to the Petition.6

    3See Letter from the petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 13, 2017) (clarifying the scope of the imported merchandise that the petitioner intends to cover).

    4See Country-specific letters to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-specific records (April 13, 2017); see also letter to the petitioner from the Department concerning supplemental questions on general issues (April 13, 2017) (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire).

    5See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's 2nd Amendment to Volume I of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 18, 2017) (General Issues 2nd Amendment); see also responses to the Department's April 13, 2017, questionnaires concerning supplemental questions on each of the country-specific records (April 18, 2017) (PRC AD Supplemental Response) (Vietnam AD Supplemental Response); and letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's Correction to Import Table (April 20, 2017) (Import Correction).

    6See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from the petitioner “Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets From the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam—Petitioner's 3rd Amendment to Volume I of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition” (April 27, 2017) (General Issues 3rd Amendment).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the petitioner alleges that imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to the petitioner supporting its allegations.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because the petitioner is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that the petitioner is requesting.7

    7See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on April 11, 2017, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), the period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The products covered by these investigations are tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to and received responses from the petitioner pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.8

    8See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire; see also General Issues 2nd Amendment; and General Issues 3rd Amendment.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope).9 The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determination. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on Monday, May 22, 2017, which is the next business day after 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, June 1, 2017, which is 10 calendar days from the deadline for initial comments.10

    9See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    10See 19 CFR 351.303(b).

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD and CVD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).11 An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement & Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    11See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011); see also Enforcement and Compliance; Change of Electronic Filing System Name, 79 FR 69046 (November 20, 2014) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

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

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

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaire, all comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 16, 2017. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information, must be filed by 5:00 p.m. ET on Tuesday, May 23, 2017. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of the PRC and Vietnam less-than-fair-value investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

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

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,12 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.13

    12See section 771(10) of the Act.

    13See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

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

    With regard to the domestic like product, the petitioner does not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that tool chests, as defined in the scope, constitute a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.14

    14 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China (PRC AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment II); and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether the petitioner has standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, the petitioner provided its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.15 In addition, the petitioner provided a letter of support from Metal Box International, stating that the company supports the Petitions and providing its own production of the domestic like product in 2016.16 The petitioner identifies itself and Metal Box International as the companies constituting the U.S. tool chests industry and states that there are no other known producers of tool chests in the United States; therefore, the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.17

    15See Volume I of the Petitions, at 3 and Exhibit GEN-1.

    16Id., at 3 and Exhibit GEN-1.

    17Id., at 2-3 and Exhibits GEN-1 and GEN-2.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions and other information readily available to the Department indicates that the petitioner has established industry support for the Petitions.18 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers (or workers) accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).19 Second, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.20 Finally, the domestic producers (or workers) have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers (or workers) who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.21 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    18See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    19See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    21Id.

    The Department finds that the petitioner filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because it is an interested party as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and it has demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that it is requesting that the Department initiate.22

    22Id.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    The petitioner alleges that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV). In addition, the petitioner alleges that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.23

    23See Volume I of the Petitions, at 17-19 and Exhibits GEN-2, GEN-7, and GEN-11.

    The petitioner contends that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share; underselling and price suppression or depression; lost sales and revenues; declining production and shipments; declining net sales; and deteriorating financial performance.24 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, and causation, and we have determined that these allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.25

    24See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12-26 and Exhibits GEN-2, GEN-6 through GEN-9, and GEN-11 through GEN-15.

    25See PRC AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petitions Covering Certain Tool Chests and Cabinets from the People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, (Attachment III); and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment III.

    Allegations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less than fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate AD investigations of imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For the PRC, the petitioner based export price (EP) on pricing information for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set produced in, and exported from, the PRC and sold in the United States.26 For Vietnam, the petitioner based EP on pricing information for a sale of a combination tool chest and cabinet set produced in, and exported from Vietnam, and sold in the United States.27 Where applicable, the petitioner made deductions from U.S. price for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees, and U.S. inland freight to the customer.28 In addition, for the PRC, the petitioner deducted an amount for the irrecoverable portion of the value added tax in the PRC, consistent with the terms of sale.29

    26See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    27See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    28See PRC AD Initiation Checklist and Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    29See PRC AD Initiation Checklist

    Normal Value

    The petitioner stated that the Department has found the PRC and Vietnam to be non-market economy (NME) countries as recently as the month before the Petitions were filed with respect to the PRC,30 and as recently as two weeks before the Petitions were filed with respect to Vietnam.31 In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, the presumption of NME status remains in effect until revoked by the Department. The presumption of NME status for either the PRC or Vietnam has not been revoked by the Department and, therefore, remains in effect for purposes of the initiation of these investigations. Accordingly, the NV of the product is appropriately based on factors of production (FOPs) valued in a surrogate market economy country, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.

    30See Volume II of the Petition, at 1.

    31See Volume III of the Petition, at 1.

    The petitioner claims that South Africa is an appropriate surrogate country for the PRC because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of the PRC, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from South Africa is available to value all FOPs.32 The petitioner claims that Indonesia is an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because it is a market economy that is at a level of economic development comparable to that of Vietnam, it is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and public information from Indonesia is available to value all FOPs.33

    32See Volume II of the Petition, at 2; see also section 773(c) of the Act.

    33See Volume III of the Petition, at 1-2 and 5, and Exhibits AD-VN-2A, AD-VN-2B, and AD-VN-2C.

    Based on the information provided by the petitioner, we believe it is appropriate to use South Africa as a surrogate country for the PRC and Indonesia as a surrogate country for Vietnam for initiation purposes. Interested parties will have the opportunity to submit comments regarding surrogate country selection and, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(i), will be provided an opportunity to submit publicly available information to value FOPs no later than 30 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations.

    Factors of Production

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Chinese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences.34 The petitioner asserts that the production process for tool chests is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the PRC.35 The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from South Africa.

    34See Volume II of the Petition, at 6, and Exhibits AD-PRC-8 and AD-PRC-9. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    35See Volume II of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibit AD-PRC-8.

    Because information regarding the volume of inputs consumed by Vietnamese producers/exporters is not reasonably available, the petitioner based the FOPs for materials, labor, and energy on its own production experience, adjusted for known differences.36 The petitioner asserts that the production process for tool chests is similar regardless of whether the product is produced in the United States or in the Vietnam.37 The petitioner valued the estimated FOPs using surrogate values from Indonesia.

    36See Volume III of the Petition, at 5 and Exhibits AD-VN-7 and AD-VN-8; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 6-8 and Exhibit III-Supp-4.

    37Id.

    Valuation of Raw Materials

    For the PRC, the petitioner valued direct materials based on publicly-available import data for South Africa obtained from the Global Trade Atlas (GTA) for the period September 2016 through February 2017 (i.e., the most recent six month period for which data were available).38 The petitioner excluded all import data from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.39 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.40 The petitioner stated that the Chinese producers use a more expensive powder coat process to paint subject tool chests than the petitioner who uses a less expensive electrophoretic (e-coat) process.41 Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its actual e-coat paint usage to reflect the additional material required under the Chinese producers' powder coat paint process.42 The petitioner made offsets to cost for steel scrap generated by the production process, using its own experience and valued at the average cost of scrap imported into South Africa from GTA.43

    38Id., at 7 and Exhibit AD-PRC-10; see also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-3.

    39 These countries include India, Indonesia, PRC, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam. See Volume II of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-PRC-10. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-3.

    40Id.

    41See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-10.

    42Id.

    43See Volume II of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-10. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    For Vietnam, the petitioner valued direct materials using public import data for Indonesia obtained from GTA for the period February 2016 through July 2016 (i.e., the most recent six-month period for which data were available).44 The petitioner excluded all import values from countries previously determined by the Department to maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export subsidies and from countries previously determined by the Department to be NME countries.45 In addition, in accordance with the Department's practice, the petitioner excluded imports that were labeled as originating from an unidentified country.46 The petitioner stated that the Vietnamese producers use a more expensive powder coat process to paint subject tool chests than the petitioner who uses a less expensive e-coat process.47 Therefore, the petitioner adjusted its actual e-coat paint usage to reflect the additional material required under Vietnamese producers' powder coat paint process.48 Finally, the petitioner made an offset to cost for steel scrap generated in the production process, estimated using its own production experience and valued at the average cost of scrap imported into Indonesia from GTA.49 The Department determines that the surrogate values used by the petitioner are reasonably available and, thus, are acceptable for purposes of initiation.

    44See Volume III of the Petition, at 6 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 6-8 and Exhibit III-Supp-4.

    45See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-9.

    46Id.

    47See Volume III of the Petition, at 6-7 and Exhibit AD-VN-8.

    48Id.

    49See Volume III of the Petition, at 6, and Exhibits AD-VN-7, AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9.

    Valuation of Labor

    For the PRC, the petitioner relied on 2012 data published by the International Labour Organization, inflated to 2016 using the South African Consumer Price Index.50 For Vietnam, the petitioner relied on 2017 data published by the World Bank in Doing Business 2017: Indonesia (DBI). 51 As noted above, because producers in the PRC and Vietnam use a powder coat method to paint subject tool chests, which is more labor-intensive, the petitioner adjusted its actual labor usage for the e-coat process to reflect its actual labor usage experience in its powder painting line.52

    50See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibit AD-PRC-13. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4-5 and Exhibits II-SUPP-4 and II-SUPP-5, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    51See Volume III of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-VN-12.

    52See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibit AD-CN-13; see also Volume III of the Petition, at 7-8 and Exhibit AD-VN-12.

    Valuation of Energy

    For the PRC, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into South Africa. The petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated usage rate.53 The petitioner valued electricity using an average per-kilowatt-hour electricity cost obtained from Doing Business 2017: South Africa. The petitioner applied that rate to the kilowatt hours of electricity that the petitioner estimated it consumed.54

    53See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-11. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4 and Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    54 See Volume II of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-PRC-12. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    For Vietnam, the petitioner valued natural gas using the average unit value of imports of liquid natural gas into Indonesia.55 The petitioner converted that cost to an equivalent per million British Thermal Units of natural gas, and applied that rate to its estimated usage rate.56 The petitioner valued electricity using a per-kilowatt-hour electricity cost in Indonesia in effect during the POI obtained from DBI. 57 The petitioner applied that rate to the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that the petitioner estimated it consumed.58

    55See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit AD-VN-10.

    56See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, AD-VN-8 and AD-VN-10.

    57See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibit AD-VN-11.

    58See Volume III of the Petition, at 7 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, AD-VN-8 and AD-VN-11.

    Valuation of Packing Materials

    For the PRC, the petitioner determined the FOPs for packing materials based on its own experience in packing its products.59 The petitioner indicated the packing materials would be cardboard shipping boxes, polybags, and Styrofoam, and valued them based on South African import values.60

    59 See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 and AD-PRC-10. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    60 See Volume II of the Petition, at 9 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 and AD-PRC-10. See also PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 4 and Exhibit II-SUPP-3, and Import Correction, at Revised Exhibits II-SUPP-3 and II-SUPP-6.

    For Vietnam, the petitioner determined the FOPs for packing materials based on its own experience in packing its products.61 The petitioner indicated the packing materials would be cardboard shipping boxes, polybags, and Styrofoam, and valued them based on Indonesian import values.62

    61See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-7 and AD-VN-8.

    62See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-7, AD-VN-8, and AD-VN-9.

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

    For the PRC, the petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit based on the 2016 consolidated financial statements of Trellidor Holdings Limited (Trellidor), a South African producer of security doors, shades, grates, and bars.63 Because Trellidor had net financial income rather than net financial expenses, the petitioner reported financial expenses as zero, in accordance with Department practice.64 The petitioner calculated a profit for Trellidor by dividing its operating profit before taxes by the sum of cost of sales and SG&A expenses. The resulting profit was added to the cost of production (COP) values for the sale product to arrive at total cost of production plus profit for the product.65

    63See Volume II of the Petition, at 10-11 and Exhibits AD-PRC-15. The petitioner was unable to find publicly-available financial statements for a South African producer of tool chests; it contends that Trellidor's production process is reasonably comparable to that of tool chests because both require bending metal in presses, welding, and painting. Further, the petitioner was unable to obtain unconsolidated financial statements from Trellidor and has therefore used the consolidated financial statements. See PRC AD Supplemental Response, at 5-6.

    64See Volume II of the Petition, at 10 and Exhibit AD-PRC-15.

    65See Volume II of the Petition, at 11 and Exhibits AD-PRC-9 and AD-PRC-15. See also Import Correction, at Revised Exhibit II-SUPP-6.

    For Vietnam, the petitioner calculated ratios for factory overhead, SG&A expenses, and profit based on publicly available 2015 consolidated financial statements of PT Lion Metal Works Tbk (PT Lion), an Indonesian producer of filing cabinets, other steel office equipment, and other steel fabricated products.66 Because PT Lion had net financial income rather than net financial expenses, the petitioner reported financial expenses as zero, in accordance with Department practice.67 The petitioner calculated a profit for PT Lion by dividing its operating profit before taxes by the sum of cost of sales and SG&A expenses.68 The resulting profit was added to the COP values for the sale product to arrive at the total cost of production plus profit for the product.69

    66See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibit AD-VN-13. The petitioner explained that it was unable to find publicly available financial statements for an Indonesian producer of merchandise identical to the merchandise under investigation; the petitioner asserted that PT Lion manufactures products through processes that require bending metal in presses, welding, and painting, production methods which are reasonably comparable to those involved in the manufacture of the merchandise under investigation.

    67See Volume III of the Petition, at 8 and Exhibits AD-VN-8 and AD-VN-14; see also Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at 8 and Exhibit III-Supp-5.

    68See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-14 and Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit III-Supp-5.

    69See Volume III of the Petition, at Exhibit AD-VN-8 and Vietnam AD Supplemental Response, at Exhibit III-Supp-4.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by the petitioner, there is reason to believe that imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV, in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin for tool chests from the PRC is 159.99 percent 70 and from Vietnam is 21.85 percent.71

    70See PRC AD Initiation Checklist.

    71See Vietnam AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of tool chests from the PRC and Vietnam are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    Under the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, numerous amendments to the AD and CVD laws were made.72 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.73 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.74

    72See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    73See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    74Id. at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    The petitioner named 47 companies in the PRC,75 and five companies in Vietnam,76 as producers/exporters of tool chests. In accordance with our standard practice for respondent selection in cases involving NME countries, we intend to issue quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaires to producers/exporters of merchandise subject to these investigations and, in the event we determine to limit the number of companies individually examined, base respondent selection on the responses received. For these investigations, the Department will request Q&V information from known exporters and producers identified, with complete contact information, in the Petitions. In addition, the Department will post the Q&V questionnaire along with filing instructions on the Enforcement & Compliance Web site at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp.

    75See Volume I of the Petitions, at 12 and Exhibit GEN-8.

    76See Id., at 12 and Exhibit GEN-9.

    Exporters/producers of tool chests from the PRC or Vietnam that do not receive Q&V questionnaires by mail may still submit a response to the Q&V questionnaire and can obtain a copy from the Enforcement & Compliance Web site. The Q&V response must be submitted by all PRC or Vietnam exporters/producers no later than May 11, 2017, which is ten days from the signature date of this notice. All Q&V responses must be filed electronically via ACCESS.

    Separate Rates

    In order to obtain separate-rate status in an NME investigation, exporters and producers must submit a separate-rate application.77 The specific requirements for submitting a separate-rate application are outlined in detail in the application itself, which is available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. The separate-rate application will be due 30 days after publication of this initiation notice.78 Exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate application and are selected as mandatory respondents will be eligible for consideration for separate-rate status only if they respond to all parts of the Department's AD questionnaire as mandatory respondents. The Department requires that respondents submit a response to both the Q&V questionnaire and the separate-rate application by their respective deadlines in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status.

    77See Policy Bulletin 05.1: Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigation involving Non-Market Economy Countries (April 5, 2005), available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf (Policy Bulletin 05.1).

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

    Use of Combination Rates

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

    {w}hile continuing the practice of assigning separate rates only to exporters, all separate rates that the Department will now assign in its NME Investigation will be specific to those producers that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation. Note, however, that one rate is calculated for the exporter and all of the producers which supplied subject merchandise to it during the period of investigation. This practice applies both to mandatory respondents receiving an individually calculated separate rate as well as the pool of non-investigated firms receiving the weighted-average of the individually calculated rates. This practice is referred to as the application of “combination rates” because such rates apply to specific combinations of exporters and one or more producers. The cash-deposit rate assigned to an exporter will apply only to merchandise both exported by the firm in question and produced by a firm that supplied the exporter during the period of investigation.79

    79See Policy Bulletin 05.1 at 6 (emphasis added).

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of the PRC and Vietnam via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

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

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of tool chests from the PRC and/or Vietnam are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.80 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country; 81 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    80See section 733(a) of the Act.

    81Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted 82 and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct.83 Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    82See 19 CFR 351.301(b).

    83See 19 CFR 351.301(b)(2).

    Extensions of Time Limits

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

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.84 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 85 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    84See section 782(b) of the Act.

    85See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

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

    Dated: May 1, 2017. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    The scope of these investigations covers certain metal tool chests and tool cabinets, with drawers, (tool chests and cabinets), from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam). The scope covers all metal tool chests and cabinets, including top chests, intermediate chests, tool cabinets and side cabinets, storage units, mobile work benches, and work stations and that have the following physical characteristics:

    (1) A body made of carbon, alloy, or stainless steel and/or other metals;

    (2) two or more drawers for storage in each individual unit;

    (3) a width (side to side) exceeding 15 inches for side cabinets and exceeding 21 inches for all other individual units but not exceeding 60 inches;

    (4) a drawer depth (front to back) exceeding 10 inches but not exceeding 24 inches; and

    (5) prepackaged for retail sale.

    For purposes of this scope, the width parameter applies to each individual unit, i.e., each individual top chest, intermediate top chest, tool cabinet, side cabinet, storage unit, mobile work bench, and work station.

    Prepackaged for retail sale means the units are packaged in a cardboard box or other container suitable for retail display and sale. Subject tool chests and cabinets are covered whether imported in assembled or unassembled form. Subject merchandise includes tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC or Vietnam but assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing in a third country prior to importation into the United States. Similarly, it would include tool chests and cabinets produced in the PRC or Vietnam that are later found to be assembled, prepackaged for sale, or subject to other minor processing after importation into the United States.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may also have doors and shelves in addition to drawers, may have handles (typically mounted on the sides), and may have a work surface on the top. Subject tool chests and cabinets may be uncoated (e.g., stainless steel), painted, powder coated, galvanized, or otherwise coated for corrosion protection or aesthetic appearance.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets may be packaged as individual units or in sets. When packaged in sets, they typically include a cabinet with one or more chests that stack on top of the cabinet. Tool cabinets act as a base tool storage unit and typically have rollers, casters, or wheels to permit them to be moved more easily when loaded with tools. Work stations and work benches are tool cabinets with a work surface on the top that may be made of rubber, plastic, metal, wood, or other materials.

    Top chests are designed to be used with a tool cabinet to form a tool storage unit. The top chests may be mounted on top of the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate chest. They are often packaged as a set with tool cabinets or intermediate chests, but may also be packaged separately. They may be packaged with mounting hardware (e.g., bolts) and instructions for assembling them onto the base tool cabinet or onto an intermediate tool chest which rests on the base tool cabinet. Smaller top chests typically have handles on the sides, while the larger top chests typically lack handles. Intermediate tool chests are designed to fit on top of the floor standing tool cabinet and to be used underneath the top tool chest. Although they may be packaged or used separately from the tool cabinet, intermediate chests are designed to be used in conjunction with tool cabinets. The intermediate chests typically do not have handles. The intermediate and top chests may have the capability of being bolted together.

    Side cabinets are designed to be bolted or otherwise attached to the side of the base storage cabinet to expand the storage capacity of the base tool cabinet.

    Subject tool chests and cabinets also may be packaged with a tool set included. Packaging a subject tool chest and cabinet with a tool set does not remove an otherwise covered subject tool chest and cabinet from the scope. When this occurs the tools are not part of the subject merchandise.

    Excluded from the scope of the investigations are tool boxes, chests and cabinets with bodies made of plastic, carbon fiber, wood, or other non-metallic substances. Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are portable metal tool boxes. Portable metal tool boxes have each of the following characteristics: (1) Fewer than three drawers; (2) a handle on the top that allows the tool box to be carried by hand; and (3) a width that is 21 inches or less; and depth (front to back) not exceeding 10 inches.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets. The excluded industrial grade steel tool chests and cabinets are those:

    (1) Having a body that is over 60 inches wide; or

    (2) having each of the following physical characteristics:

    (a) A body made of steel that is 0.055” or more in thickness;

    (b) all drawers over 21” deep;

    (c) all drawer slides rated for 200 lbs. or more; and

    (d) not prepackaged for retail sale.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are work benches with fewer than two drawers. Excluded work benches have a solid top working surface, fewer than two drawers, are supported by legs and have no solid front, side, or back panels enclosing the body of the unit.

    Also excluded from the scope of the investigations are metal filing cabinets that are configured to hold hanging file folders and are classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheading 9403.10.0020.

    Merchandise subject to the investigations is classified under HTSUS categories 9403.20.0021, 9403.20.0026, 9403.20.0030 and 7326.90.8688, but may also be classified under HTSUS category 7326.90.3500. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2017-09370 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RIN 1840-AD14 [Docket ID: ED-2015-OPE-0020] Request for Information Regarding Disclosures for Student Financial Accounts AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary seeks information from the public regarding the major features and types of commonly assessed fees that postsecondary institutions (institutions) must disclose under 34 CFR 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) of the cash management regulations with regard to each of the institution's Tier 1 (T1) or Tier 2 (T2) arrangements as defined under § 668.164(e)(1) and (f)(1), respectively. The Secretary also requests feedback regarding the proposed format of these disclosures. The Secretary intends to use this information in developing a notice to be published in the Federal Register describing the format, content, and update requirements that institutions may follow to satisfy the requirements of § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) with respect to the major features and assessed fees associated with the T1 and T2 arrangements.

    DATES:

    We must receive your submission no later than June 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or email. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket is available on the site under the “Help” tab.

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: The Department of Education (Department) strongly encourages commenters to submit their comments electronically. However, if you mail or deliver your comments in response to this request, address them to Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202.

    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    This is a request for information (RFI) only. This RFI is not a request for proposals (RFP) or a promise to issue an RFP or a notice inviting applications (NIA). This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Department is not seeking proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI. If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future contracts and grants. The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ashley Higgins, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W234, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6097 or by email: [email protected]

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: On October 30, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register the Program Integrity and Improvement final regulations (80 FR 67125). These final regulations contained provisions governing cash management, including the establishment of new rules regarding financial accounts marketed to students receiving title IV program funds under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). The final regulations were intended to ensure that students have convenient access to their title IV, HEA program funds, do not incur unreasonable and uncommon financial account fees on their title IV, HEA program funds, and are not led to believe they must open a particular financial account to receive their Federal student aid.

    As part of the Secretary's effort to ensure that title IV recipients are informed but not misinformed about the terms of financial accounts offered to them through their institution, § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) requires that prior to the student opening an account offered by a financial account provider, institutions list and identify the major features and commonly assessed fees associated with each financial account offered under a T1 or T2 arrangement, as well as the URL where the complete terms and conditions of each account may be obtained. The regulations do not require institutions to adopt the Secretary's format for this information once it is published in the Federal Register, but it does state that institutions that do meet the format, content, and update requirements in the Secretary's format will be deemed in compliance with the requirements of the regulations, with respect to the major features and assessed fees associated with the account offered pursuant to the T1 or T2 arrangement.

    If an institution chooses to use its own format to comply with the disclosure requirements in § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2), or a format provided by its financial account provider, the institution must list the major features, commonly assessed fees, and the URL where the terms and conditions of each account may be obtained.

    In the preamble of the final regulations, we committed to work with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to ensure that the disclosures required under § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2) do not conflict with theirs. We also assured stakeholders that, to the maximum extent possible, the disclosures would be as similar as possible to the CFPB's requirements to mitigate confusion and administrative burden. We believe that the proposed format described below meets those goals.

    Request for Information

    After consultation with the CFPB, the Secretary seeks feedback from the public regarding the proposed format, content, and update requirements for the disclosures. We propose that, in cases where the account provided is a prepaid account, as addressed in the CFPB's notice of final rule and official interpretations for Prepaid Accounts under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (Regulation E) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (81 FR 83934), each institution's financial account provider can include, in the student choice menu described in § 668.164(d)(4)(i), the CFPB's appropriate short-form disclosure as described in 81 FR 83934. If an institution offering a prepaid card under its T1 or T2 arrangement meets the disclosure requirements established by the CFPB in 81 FR 83934, it would be in compliance with § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(2) of the cash management final regulations. However, because § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(A)(1) requires that institutions disclose in writing that students do not need to use a particular account to receive their Federal student aid, institutions using the CFPB disclosure template must also display a message, along with the disclosure, stating that students do not need to use the prepaid account to receive Federal student aid. We also recommend including, along with the message, a note that directs students to ask about other ways to receive their Federal student aid. We remind institutions that the CFPB's short-form template was not drafted to implement the Department's cash management regulations; accordingly, institutions using that template should not regard it as authorizing T1 or T2 arrangements that feature imposition of any fees otherwise prohibited under § 668.164(e) or (f), as applicable.

    For institutions whose financial account provider either does not offer a prepaid account or chooses not to use the CFPB's short-form disclosure template, we propose the following format:

    EN09MY17.003

    We propose that institutions choosing to use this form would be required to comply with the following instructions:

    • The institution's disclosure must list the following fees: Periodic fees, per purchase fees (including point-of-sale fees), ATM withdrawal fees, cash reload fees, ATM balance inquiry fees, customer service fees, and inactivity fees. These fees are referred to as “static fees” because all institutions using the Secretary's format must list these fees on the disclosure, even if the amount of the fee is zero or the fee relates to a feature that is not offered as part of the specific account. In cases where the amount of any fee could vary, the disclosure must show the highest amount the account provider may charge for that fee, followed by a symbol, such as an asterisk, linked to a statement explaining that the fee could be lower depending on how and where the account is used. The asterisk would be included, for example, if point-of-sale fees differ depending on whether the cardholder is required to provide a PIN or signature. In cases where a static fee is not imposed, the institution may demonstrate that the fee is not applicable by placing “N/A” or an equivalent designation in the appropriate field.

    • The disclosure must include the number of fee types the accountholder may be charged under the specific account program, excluding those fees that are either disclosed on the form or in close proximity as described below.

    • The disclosure must also list the two additional fee types, if any, that generated the highest revenue from accountholders during the previous 24 months excluding static fees, any purchase price, any activation fees, and any fee types that generated less than five percent of the total revenue from accountholders, as well as the amounts of such additional fees. The two additional fee types would be determined for the specific financial account program or across programs with the same fee schedule. Institutions must ensure that the financial account provider reviews their fee revenue periodically and that they assist the institution in updating the disclosure if needed.

    • The disclosure must include statements regarding linked overdraft credit features, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation/National Credit Union Administration insurance, and a link to the terms and conditions of the account.

    • The disclosure must include a written statement that students do not have to accept the T1 or T2 account and may recommend that students ask about other ways to receive their Federal student aid.

    • In close proximity to the disclosure, though not necessarily within the disclosure itself, the institution must disclose the financial account provider's name, the name of the account, for T2 accounts any purchase price for the account (such as a fee for acquiring an access device or a replacement for an access device), and any fee for activating the account. If the financial account is a T1 account, the institution must also use this space to disclose that a student accountholder may access his or her title IV, HEA program funds in part and in full up to the account balance via domestic withdrawals and transfers free of charge, during the student's entire period of enrollment following the date that such title IV, HEA program funds are deposited or transferred to the financial account, as required under § 668.164(e)(2)(v)(C). We also remind institutions that any account that falls under the definition of a T1 account may not charge fees for opening or activating the financial account or initially receiving or activating an access device, nor for overdrafts or fees assessed on point-of-sale transactions.

    We request assistance from the community in evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed format, content, and update requirements. Specifically, the Secretary requests information on whether—

    1. We have included all relevant fee information in the disclosures;

    2. The disclosures would be inappropriate for a particular type of account;

    3. Simply placing a “$0” or “N/A” in a place where no fee is charged would suffice to convey all of the necessary information;

    4. There is a preferred start date for the requirement to include the two additional fee types that generated the highest revenue from accountholders during the previous 24 months;

    5. Any conflict exists regarding other regulatory requirements, particularly with the proposal to allow institutions to use the CFPB disclosures described in 81 FR 83934 for this purpose;

    6. Students may find the disclosures confusing or unhelpful and, if so, whether the commenter can suggest specific alternatives;

    7. There are any other potential problems with including this format within the student choice menu to satisfy the requirements in § 668.164(d)(4)(i)(B)(2); or

    8. Opportunities exist to further streamline the format of the template to reduce administrative burden.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09349 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2017-ICCD-0062] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments) AGENCY:

    Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 10, 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-0062. 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 Carlos Martinez, 202-260-1440.

    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: Evaluation of the ESSA Title I, Part C, Migrant Education Programs (Study Instruments).

    OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 450.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 236.

    Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine how state agencies, school districts, local operating agencies, and schools implement education and transition programs for children and youth who are migratory students under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Title I, Part C.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09372 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2017-ICCD-0004] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (Recruitment and Study Design Phase) AGENCY:

    Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

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

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 8, 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-0004. 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 Oliver Schak, 202-453-5643.

    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: Study of Weighted Student Funding and School-Based Systems (recruitment and study design phase).

    OMB Control Number: 1875-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

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

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 685.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 310.

    Abstract: The purpose of this study is to examine districts that have implemented weighted student funding (WSF) systems. In doing so, the study team will investigate how these systems for funding schools have been implemented, the benefits in terms of enhanced school funding equity and improved resource allocation practices through more equitable distributions of funding to schools and increased principal autonomy, and the challenges each district may have faced in undertaking such a reform. To this end, the study team will conduct site visits to a set of nine case study districts that will involve in-person interviews with district officials and school staff involved in WSF system administration. In addition, the study team will collect and review relevant extant data (budget and audited expenditure files) and administer surveys to a nationally representative sample of principals and school district administrators.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09348 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1530-000] Pennsylvania Grain Processing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Pennsylvania Grain Processing, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 23, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09339 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-712-000.

    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): L&U and Fuel Update Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 04/28/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5497.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, May 10, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-713-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per 154.204: 2017 Non-Conforming SA FT-1389 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5111.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-714-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. submits tariff filing per 154.204: 2017 Non-Conforming SA FT-1420 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5128.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-715-000.

    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.

    Description: Southeast Supply Header, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): 2017 SESH TUP/SBA Annual Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5146.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-716-000.

    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.

    Description: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.403(d)(2): 2017 GNGS TUP/SBA Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5162.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-717-000.

    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.204: MNUS Misc. Cleanup Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5173.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-718-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per 154.204: 20170501 Gaines County Crossover Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5208.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-719-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits tariff filing per 154.403: 20170501 Winter PRA Fuel Rates to be effective 11/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5211.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-720-000.

    Applicants: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: ETC Tiger Pipeline, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Fuel Filing on 5-1-17 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5212.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-721-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements 5/1/17 to be effective 5/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5213.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-722-000.

    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.

    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.203: Compliance with CP15-144 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5221.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-723-000.

    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing—May 2017 Cross Timbers Removals to be effective 5/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5245.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-724-000.

    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.

    Description: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per 154.204: Motion to Place Interim Settlement Rates Into Effect to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5254.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-725-000.

    Applicants: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Fayetteville Express Pipeline LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Fuel Filing on 5-1-17 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 05/01/2017.

    Accession Number: 20170501-5286.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 15, 2017.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 2, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09306 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may attend the following meetings:

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation Member Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings Board of Trustees Corporate Governance and Human Resources Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, Compliance Committee, and Standards Oversight and Technology Committee Meetings The Ritz-Carlton, St. Louis, 100 Carondelet Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63105. May 10 (8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. central time) and May 11 (8:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. central time), 2017.

    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at: http://www.nerc.com/Pages/Calendar.aspx.

    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings: Docket No. RR15-2, North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-8529, or [email protected]

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09342 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 6902-084] American Municipal Power, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

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

    a. Type of Application: Amendment of Project License.

    b. Project No: 6902-084.

    c. Date Filed: January 18, 2017.

    d. Applicant: American Municipal Power, Inc. (licensee).

    e. Name of Project: Willow Island Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project.

    f. Location: Ohio River in Pleasants County, West Virginia and Washington County, Ohio.

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

    h. Applicant Contact: Phillip E. Meier, American Municipal Power, Inc., 1111 Schrock Road, Suite 100, Columbus, OH 43229; phone (614) 540-0913.

    i. FERC Contact: Michael Calloway at 202-502-8041, or [email protected]

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, and comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected], (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include docket number P-6902-084.

    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests that the Commission delete Article 404 from the project license. Article 404 requires the licensee to monitor fish mortality and develop a plan to reduce mortality and compensate West Virginia and Ohio Departments of Natural Resources for the remaining fish mortality. The licensee cited the Court of Appeals in City of New Martinsville v. FERC, 103 F. 3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and stated that since the court case the Commission policy regarding such compensation has changed. The licensee also cited several Commission decisions that have occurred since the court case as support for their request.

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

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

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

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

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09343 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17-69-000] Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, and Enel Green Power North America, Inc. Alabama Power Company, and Southern Company Services, Inc., as Agent v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on May 1, 2017, pursuant to sections 206 and 306 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824e and 825e, and Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Enel Green Power North America, Inc., on behalf its subsidiary, Buffalo Dunes Wind Project, LLC, and Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company (collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (Respondent) alleging that Respondent's plans to allocate congestion management rights and revenues to customers with firm transmission service subject to redispatch for the upcoming 2017-2018 allocation year is unjust and unreasonable and unduly discriminatory and preferential, all as more fully explained in the complaint.

    Complainants certify that a copy of the complaint and motion has been served on the contacts for Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials on its Web site.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainant.

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

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 31, 2017.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09336 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC17-97-000.

    Applicants: HA Wind V LLC, Morgan Stanley Wind LLC.

    Description: Amendment to March 22, 2017 Application for Approval Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of Morgan Stanley Wind LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5617.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-103-000.

    Applicants: CPV Fairview, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of CPV Fairview, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20170502-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-104-000.

    Applicants: Sunray Energy 2 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Sunray Energy 2 LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-105-000.

    Applicants: Sunray Energy 3 LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Sunray Energy 3 LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5067.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2010-002; ER12-1308 009; ER15-1471-008;. ER15-1672-007; ER16-2561 002.

    Applicants: Hancock Wind, LLC, Blue Sky West, LLC, Evergreen Wind Power II, LLC, Palouse Wind, LLC, Sunflower Wind Project, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Hancock Wind, LLC, et al.

    Filed Date: 4/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5619.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-965-001.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing per Order issued 4/7/2017 replacing placeholder effective date to be effective 1/30/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20170502-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1528-000.

    Applicants: St. Joseph Energy Center, LLC.

    Description: Petition of St. Joseph Energy Center for Waiver of MOPR Deadline.

    Filed Date: 4/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5534.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1529-000.

    Applicants: West Penn Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company, Monongahela Power Company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, American Transmission Systems, Incorporated, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: ATSI et al submit Interconnection Agreement No. 2149 and ECSA SA No. 4559 to be effective 6/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20170502-5120.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1530-000.

    Applicants: Pennsylvania Grain Processing, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Market-based rate application to be effective 5/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20170502-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1531-000.

    Applicants: CPV Fairview, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be effective 7/2/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/2/17.

    Accession Number: 20170502-5149.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/23/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1532-000.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Amended and Restated WPC to be effective 5/3/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5029.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1533-000.

    Applicants: Pocahontas Prairie Wind, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: CIS & Request for Cat 1 Central to be effective 5/4/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1534-000.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of LGIA for ESEC2 Project to be effective 7/14/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5110.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1535-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA SA No. 4253, Queue No. AA1-073 to be effective 6/26/2017.

    Filed Date: 5/3/17.

    Accession Number: 20170503-5107.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/24/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES17-31-000.

    Applicants: Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois.

    Description: Application of Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois for Authorization under Federal Power Act Section 204.

    Filed Date: 4/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5590.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH17-14-000.

    Applicants: IIF US Holding 2 GP, LLC.

    Description: IIF US Holding 2 GP, LLC submits FERC 65-A Exemption Notification.

    Filed Date: 4/28/17.

    Accession Number: 20170428-5614.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/19/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09337 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER17-1531-000] CPV Fairview, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CPV Fairview, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is May 23, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09340 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket Nos. RD17-5-000 and IC17-6-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725E); Comment Request; Revision and Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of revised information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on revisions to the information collection, FERC-725E (Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council) and will be submitting FERC-725E to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by Docket Nos. RD17-5-000 and IC17-6-000 by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0246.

    Type of Request: Three-year approval of the FERC-725E information collection requirements, as modified by Docket No. RD17-5-000.

    Abstract: The information collected by the FERC-725E is required to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824o). Section 215 of the FPA buttresses the Commission's efforts to strengthen the reliability of the interstate grid through the grant of new authority by providing for a system of mandatory Reliability Standards developed by the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a Regional Entity.1 A Regional Entity is an entity that has been approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under delegated authority from the ERO.2 On June 8, 2008, the Commission approved eight regional Reliability Standards submitted by the ERO that were proposed by the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).3

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4).

    2 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4).

    3North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC 61,260 (2007).

    WECC promotes bulk electric system reliability in the Western Interconnection. WECC is the Regional Entity responsible for compliance monitoring and enforcement. In addition, WECC provides an environment for the development of Reliability Standards and the coordination of the operating and planning activities of its members as set forth in the WECC Bylaws.

    There are several regional Reliability Standards in the WECC region. These regional Reliability Standards generally require entities to document compliance with substantive requirements, retain documentation, and submit reports to WECC.

    BAL-002-WECC-2a (Contingency Reserve) 4 requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to document compliance with the contingency reserve requirements described in the standard.

    4 BAL-002-WECC-2 is included in the OMB-approved inventory for FERC-725E. On November 9, 2016, NERC and WECC submitted a joint petition for approval of an interpretation of BAL-002-WECC-2, to be designated BAL-002-WECC-2a. BAL-002-WECC-2a was approved by order in Docket No. RD17-3-000 on January 24, 2017. The Order determined: The proposed interpretation provides clarification regarding the types of resources that may be used to satisfy Contingency Reserve requirements in regional Reliability Standard BAL-002-WECC-2. BAL-002-WECC-2a did not trigger the Paperwork Reduction Act and did not affect the burden estimate. BAL-002-WECC-2a is being included in this Notice and the Commission's submittal to OMB as part of the FERC-725E.

    • BAL-004-WECC-02 (Automatic Time Error Correction) requires balancing authorities to document that time error corrections and primary inadvertent interchange payback were conducted according the requirements in the standard.

    • FAC-501-WECC-1 (Transmission Maintenance) requires transmission owners with certain transmission paths to have a transmission maintenance and inspection plan and to document maintenance and inspection activities according to the plan.

    • IRO-006-WECC-2 (Qualified Transfer Path Unscheduled Flow (USF) Relief) 5 requires balancing authorities and reliability coordinators document actions taken to mitigate unscheduled flow.

    5 On December 20, 2013, NERC and WECC submitted a joint petition for approval of IRO-006-WECC-2 and retirement of IRO-006-WECC-1. IRO-006-WECC-2 was approved by order in Docket No. RD14-9-000 on May 13, 2014. Because the reporting burden for IRO-006-WECC-2 did not increase for entities that operate within the Western Interconnection, FERC submitted the order to OMB for information only. The burden related to IRO-006-WECC-2 does not differ from the burden of IRO-006-WECC-1, which is included in the OMB-approved inventory. IRO-006-WECC-2 is being included in this Notice and the Commission's submittal to OMB as part of FERC-725E.

    • PRC-004-WECC-2 (Protection System and Remedial Action Scheme Misoperation) 6 requires transmission owners, generator owners and transmission operators to document their analysis and/or mitigation due to certain misoperations on major transfer paths. This standard requires that documentation be kept for six years.

    6 Order No. 818, issued on November 19, 2015 in Docket Nos. RM15-7, RM15-12, and RM15-13, stated in part: “NERC requested approval of the following Reliability Standards to incorporate the proposed definition of Remedial Action Scheme and eliminate use of the term Special Protection System: . . . PRC-004-WECC-2, . . . NERC did not propose any changes to the Violation Risk Factors or Violation Severity Levels for the modified standards.” Revisions to Emergency Operations Reliability Standards; Revisions to Undervoltage Load Shedding Reliability Standards; Revisions to the Definition of “Remedial Action Scheme” and Related Reliability Standards, Order No. 818, 153 FERC ¶ 61,228, at P 23 n.31 (2015). In addition, Order No. 818 stated: “The Commission approved the definition of Special Protection System (Remedial Action Scheme) in Order No. 693. We approve a revision to the previously approved definition. The revisions to the Remedial Action Scheme definition and related Reliability Standards are not expected to result in changes to the scope of systems covered by the Reliability Standards and other Reliability Standards that include the term Remedial Action Scheme. Therefore, the Commission does not expect the revisions to affect applicable entities' current reporting burden.” Id. P 67. The change to the definition did not affect the burden of PRC-004-WECC-1 (which is included in the current OMB-approved inventory). PRC-004-WECC-2 (the current version of the standard) is being included in this Notice and the Commission's submittal to OMB as part of the FERC-725E.

    • VAR-002-WECC-2 (Automatic Voltage Regulators (AVR)) 7 requires generator operators and transmission operators to provide quarterly reports to the compliance monitor and have evidence related to their synchronous generators, synchronous condensers, and automatic voltage regulators.

    7 VAR-002-WECC-2 was approved by order in Docket No. RD15-1 on March 3, 2015. Regional Reliability Standard VAR-002-WECC-2 made a non-material or non-substantive change to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with VAR-002-WECC-1 (currently included in the OMB-approved inventory). VAR-002-WECC-2 (the current version of the standard) is being included in this Notice and the Commission's submittal to OMB as part of FERC-725E.

    The associated reporting and recordkeeping requirements included in the standards above are not being revised, and the Commission will be submitting a request to OMB to extend these requirements for three years. The Commission's request to OMB will also reflect the following:

    • Eliminating the burden associated with regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a, which is being retired (addressed in Docket No. RD16-10); 8 and

    8 The Commission approved the retirement of regional Reliability Standard TOP-007-WECC-1a (System Operating Limits (SOL)) by order in Docket No. RD16-10-000 on March 10, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the Commission issued a 60-day Notice requesting public comment on the effect on burden. The Notice is available at 82 FR 16823 (April 6, 2017). Comments are due in Docket No. RD16-10-000 by June 5, 2017. See Docket No. RD16-10-000 for additional information (including the estimated annual burden reduction of 1,188 hours).

    • Implementing the regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 and the retirement of regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2 (addressed in Docket No. RD17-5 and discussed below).

    On March 10, 2017, NERC and WECC filed a joint petition in Docket No. RD17-5-000 9 requesting Commission approval of: (a) Regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 (Power System Stabilizers), and (b) the retirement of then-existing regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2. The petition states: “Regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 establishes the performance criteria for power system stabilizers to help ensure the Western Interconnection is operated in a coordinated manner under normal and abnormal conditions.” VAR-501-WECC-3 was approved by order in Docket No. RD17-5-000 on April 28, 2017. In this document, we provide estimates of the burden and cost related to those revisions to FERC-725E.

    9 The joint petition and exhibits are posted in the Commission's eLibrary system in Docket No. RD17-5-000.

    Type of Respondents: Balancing authorities, reserve sharing groups, transmission owners, reliability coordinators, transmission operators, generator operators, and generator owners.

    Estimate of Annual Burden10 : Details follow on the changes in Docket No. RD17-5-000, and on the continuing burdens, which will be submitted to OMB for approval in a consolidated package under FERC-725E.

    10 Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    Estimate of Changes to Burden Due to Docket No. RD17-5: The joint petition requested Commission approval of regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 and retirement of then-existing regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-2. The estimated effects on burden and cost 11 are as follow:

    11 For VAR-501-WECC-3, the hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for three positions involved in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These figures include salary (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:

    • Manager: $89.07/hour

    • Engineer: $64.91/hour

    • File Clerk: $31.19/hour

    The hourly cost for the reporting requirements ($76.99) is an average of the cost of a manager and engineer. The hourly cost for recordkeeping requirements uses the cost of a file clerk.

    FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council, Changes in Docket No. RD17-5-000 Entity Number of
  • respondents 12
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden hrs. &
  • cost per response
  • ($)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • ($)
  • Cost per respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) = (6) Retirement Of Former Standard VAR-501-WECC-2 and Associated Reductions Reporting Requirements (Annually) Generator Operators 249 4 996 1 hr.; $76.22 996 hrs.; $75,915.12 (reduction) $304.88 (reduction) Recordkeeping Requirements (Annually) Generator Operators 249 4 996 0.5 hrs.; $31.19 498 hrs.; $15,532.62 (reduction) $62.38 (reduction) Reductions (Annually) 1,494 hrs.; $91,447.74 (reduction) New Standard VAR-501-WECC-3 Reporting Requirements Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 1 291 3 873 1 hr.; $76.99 873 hrs.; $67,212.27 $230.97 Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 2 and Ongoing 291 2 582 1 hr.; $76.99 582 hrs.; $44,808.18 $153.98 Recordkeeping Requirements Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 1 291 3 873 1 hr.; $31.19 873 hrs.; $27,228.87 $93.57 Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 2 and Ongoing 291 2 582 0.5 hrs.; $15.595 291 hrs.; $9,076.29 $31.19 New Burden, in Year 1 1,746 hrs.; $94,441.14 New Burden, in Year 2 & Ongoing 873 hrs.; $53,884.47 Net Burden Change in Year 1 +252 hrs (increase) Net Burden Change in Year 2 and Ongoing −621 hrs. (decrease)

    Estimate of Continuing Annual Burden for Renewal and New Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3:13 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden and cost 14 as follows for FERC-725E. (This information will be submitted to OMB for approval.) These estimates reflect:

    12 The number of respondents is derived from the NERC Compliance Registry as of March 10, 2017.

    13 The Commission is also removing 36 one-time burden hours associated with the requirements in Docket No. RM13-13. The one-time burden has been completed and will now be administratively removed on submittal to OMB. Those hours are not included in the table.

    14 The hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) uses the figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for three positions involved in the reporting and recordkeeping requirements. These figures include salary (http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and other associated benefits (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm) and are:

    • Manager: $89.07/hour

    • Engineer: $64.91/hour

    • File Clerk: $31.19/hour

    The hourly cost for the reporting requirements ($76.99) is an average of the cost of a manager and engineer. The hourly cost for recordkeeping requirements uses the cost of a file clerk.

    • Reliability Standards in FERC-725E which continue and remain unchanged (BAL-002-WECC-2a, BAL-004-WECC-02, FAC-501-WECC-1, IRO-006-WECC-2, PRC-004-WECC-2, and VAR-002-WECC-2);

    • Removal of burden due to the retirement of TOP-007-WECC-1a (discussed in Docket No. RD16-10-000)

    • Additional burden due to VAR-501-WECC-3, and removal of burden due to the retirement of VAR-501-WECC-2 (detailed above and in Docket No. RD17-5-000).

    (The burdens and costs related to TOP-007-WECC-1a and VAR-501-WECC-2 [the standards being retired] are omitted from the table below, which describes the new and continuing information collection requirements.)

    FERC-725E, Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Western Electric Coordinating Council [New and Continuing Information Collection Requirements] Entity Number of
  • respondents 15
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per respondent
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses
  • Average burden hrs. &
  • cost per response
  • ($)
  • Total annual
  • burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • ($)
  • Cost per respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)*(2) = (3) (4) (3)*(4) = (5) (5)÷(1) = (6) Reporting Requirements Balancing Authorities 34 1 34 21 hrs., $1,616.79 714 hrs., $54,970.86 $1,616.79 Generator Operators 228 1 228 10 hrs., $769.90 2,280 hrs., $175,537.20 $769.90 Transmission Operators applicable to standard VAR-002 86 4 344 10 hrs., $769.90 3,440 hrs., $264,845.60 $769.90 Transmission Owners that operate qualified transfer paths 5 3 15 40 hrs., $3,079.60 600 hrs., $46,194.00 $3,079.60 Reliability Coordinators 1 1 1 1 hr., $76.99 1 hr., $76.99 $76.99 Reserve Sharing Group 3 1 3 1 hr., $76.99 3 hrs., $230.97 $76.99 Generator Owners and/or Operators , in Year 1, per RD17-5 for VAR-501-WECC-3 291 3 873 1 hr.; $76.99 873 hrs.; $67,212.27 $230.97 Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 2 and Ongoing, per RD17-5 for VAR-501-WECC-3 291 2 582 1 hr.; $76.99 582 hrs.; $44,808.18 $153.98 Sub-Total for Reporting Requirement in Year 1 7,911 hrs.; $609,067.89 Sub-Total for Reporting Requirement Burden in Year 2 & ongoing 7,620 hrs.; $586,663.80 Recordkeeping Requirements Balancing Authorities 34 1 34 2.1 hrs., $65.50 71.4 hrs., $2,226.97 $65.50 Balancing Authorities (IRO-006) 34 1 34 1 hr., $31.19 34 hrs., $1,060.46 $31.19 Generator Operators 228 1 228 1 hr., $31.19 228 hrs., $7,111.32 $31.19 Transmission Operator (VAR-002) 86 1 86 4 hrs., $124.76 344 hrs., $10,729.36 $124.76 Transmission Owner that operate qualified transfer paths 5 1 5 12 hrs., $374.28 60 hrs., $1,871.40 $374.28 Reliability Coordinator 1 1 1 1 hr.; $31.19 1 hr.; $31.19 $31.19 Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 1, per RD17-5 for VAR-501-WECC-3 291 3 873 1 hr.; $31.19 873 hrs.; $27,228.87 $93.57 Generator Owners and/or Operators, in Year 2 and Ongoing, per RD17-5 for VAR-501-WECC-3 291 2 582 0.5 hrs.; $15.595 291 hrs.; $9,076.29 $31.19 Sub-Total for Recordkeeping Requirements in Yr. 1 1,611.4 hrs.; $50,259.57 Sub-Total for Recordkeeping Requirements in Yr. 2 & ongoing 1,029.4 hrs.; $32,106.99 TOTAL FOR FERC-725E, IN YR. 1 9,522.4 hrs.; $659,327.46 TOTAL FOR FERC-725E, IN YR. 2 & ONGOING 8,649.4 hrs.; $618,770.79

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09341 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP17-239-000] Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on April 25, 2017, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans), 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 filed a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act for authorization to abandon two wells in Equitrans' Logansport Storage Field located in Marion County, West Virginia. Specifically, Equitrans seeks to plug and abandon two natural gas storage injection and withdrawal wells, Logansport 6188 and Logansport 8271, which were damaged as a result of undermining activity that took place in 2010 and are at risk for gas loss. The abandonment will have no effect on the certificated physical parameters of the field, and there will be no effect on service to any of Equitrans' customers, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or call toll-free, (866) 208-3676 or TTY, (202) 502-8659.

    Any questions regarding this Application should be directed to Paul W. Diehl, Counsel, Midstream at Equitrans, L.P., 625 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1700, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, by phone (412) 395-5540, or by fax (412) 553-7781, or by email at [email protected].

    Any person may, within 60 days after the issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. Any person filing to intervene or the Commission's staff may, pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) file a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.

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

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

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the “e-Filing” link. Persons unable to file electronically should submit original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09338 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9961-65-Region 6] Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions; Petition for Exemption Reissuance—Class I Hazardous Waste Injection; INVISTA Victoria Victoria, Texas AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a final decision on a UIC no migration petition reissuance.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a reissuance of an exemption to the land disposal Restrictions, under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has been granted to INVISTA Victoria for nine Class I hazardous waste injection wells located at their Victoria, Texas. The company has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous. This final decision allows the underground injection by INVISTA Victoria, of the specific restricted hazardous wastes identified in this exemption reissuance, into Class I hazardous waste injection Wells WDW-004, WDW-028, WDW-029, WDW-030, WDW-105, WDW-106, WDW-142, WDW-143, and WDW-144 until December 31, 2025, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption or other petition condition limitations are reached. Additional conditions included in this final decision may be reviewed by contacting the Region 6 Ground Water/UIC Section. A public notice was issued February 3, 2017, and the public comment period closed on March 21, 2017, and no comments were received. This decision constitutes final Agency action and there is no Administrative appeal. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DATES:

    This action is effective as of March 28, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of the petition reissuance and all pertinent information relating thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Water Division, Safe Drinking Water Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/UIC Section, EPA—Region 6, telephone (214) 665-8324.

    Dated: April 6, 2017. William K. Honker, Director, Water Division.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09379 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9962-03-Region 1] 2017 Spring Joint Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the joint 2017 Spring Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) and the Mid-Atlantic Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU). The meeting agenda will include topics regarding reducing ground-level ozone precursors and matters relative to Regional Haze and visibility improvement in Federal Class I areas in a multi-pollutant context.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 6, 2017 starting at 9:15 a.m. and ending at 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Location: The Gideon Putnam, 24 Gideon Putnam Road, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866, 518-226-4700.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For documents and press inquiries contact: Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street NW., Suite 322, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; email: [email protected]; Web site: http://www.otcair.org.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution. Section 184(a) establishes an Ozone Transport Region (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, parts of Virginia and the District of Columbia. The purpose of the OTC is to deal with ground-level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.

    The Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) was formed in 2001, in response to EPA's issuance of the Regional Haze rule. MANE-VU's members include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the Penobscot Indian Nation, and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, along with EPA and Federal Land Managers.

    Type of Meeting: Open.

    Agenda: Copies of the final agenda will be available from the OTC office (202) 508-3840; by email: [email protected] or via the OTC Web site at http://www.otcair.org.

    Dated: April 17, 2017. Deborah A. Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, Region I.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09388 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675; FRL-9960-84] TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for Small Manufacturers and Processors; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice; reopening of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 15, 2016, EPA issued a notice in the Federal Register requesting public comment on whether revision to the current size standards for small manufacturers and processors, which are used in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a), is warranted. This document reopens the comment period for 15 days. The comment period is being reopened in order to allow the public to consider feedback received by EPA from the Small Business Administration (SBA) as a result of a consultation request on EPA's preliminary determination on whether revision to these standards is warranted.

    DATES:

    Comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675, must be received on or before May 24, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of December 15, 2016 (81 FR 90840) (FRL-9956-03).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For technical information contact: Lynne Blake-Hedges, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8807; email address: [email protected].

    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document reopens the public comment period established in the Federal Register document of December 15, 2016. In that document, EPA requested comment on its preliminary determination on whether a revision of the standards for determining the manufacturers and processors which qualify as small manufacturers and processors for purposes of TSCA sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) was warranted. On December 7, 2016, EPA also submitted a consultation request to the SBA on the adequacy of the current standards and requested a response within 15 business days of receipt (Ref. 1). EPA had intended to add SBA's response to the docket to give the public an opportunity to review the response to inform their comments on EPA's preliminary determination. EPA received feedback on the consultation request on behalf of the SBA Administrator on April 5, 2017 (Ref. 2), concluding the consultation with SBA. Consistent with section 8(a)(3)(C), EPA is providing public notice and an opportunity for comment on its preliminary determination after consultation with the Administrator of SBA.

    EPA is hereby reopening the comment period for 15 days to May 24, 2017.

    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register document of December 15, 2016 (81 FR 90840) (FRL-9956-03). If you have questions, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Jones, Jim. Letter to Maria Contreras-Sweet. “Consultation under Section 8(a)(3)(C) the Toxic Substances Control Act”. December 2016. 2. Linda McMahon. Response to Consultation Request under Section 8(a)(3)(C) the Toxic Substances Control Act. April 2017. Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 2607(a)(3)(C).

    Dated: April 21, 2017. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09380 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10338—North Georgia Bank, Watkinsville, Georgia

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for North Georgia Bank, Watkinsville, Georgia (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of North Georgia Bank on February 4, 2011. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09327 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Agency:

    Federal Election Commission.

    Date and Time:

    Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.

    Place:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).

    Status:

    This meeting, open to the public, has been canceled.

    Person to Contact for Information:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Dayna C. Brown, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09429 Filed 5-5-17; 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 24, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Paul Skorheim, Sauk Centre, Minnesota, individually and as a trustee of the Minnesota National Bank Retirement Savings & Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust, Sauk Centre, Minnesota;, to retain 10 percent or more of the shares of Sauk Centre Financial Services, Inc., Sauk Centre, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain shares of Minnesota National Bank, Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

    Additionally, the ESOP's trustees, Paul Skorheim, and Donald John, both of Sauk Centre, Minnesota, as members of a group acting in concert with the ESOP, to retain voting shares of SCFS, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Minnesota National Bank, Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:

    1. James R. Cole, Jr., Natchitoches, Louisiana; individually and as trustee of the James R. Cole, Sr. Family Trust; Elizabeth Cole, Natchitoches, Louisiana, as trustee of the DALOCO Trust; and Edith Palmer, Many, Louisiana, together a group acting in concert; to retain voting shares of Sabine Bancshares, Inc., Many, Louisiana, and indirectly retain shares of Sabine State Bank and Trust Company, Many, Louisiana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2017.

    Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09357 Filed 5-8-17; 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 June 5, 2017.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. United Community Banks, Inc., Blairsville, Georgia; to merge with HCSB Financial Corporation, and thereby indirectly acquire Horry County State Bank, both of Loris, South Carolina.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    Minnesota National Bank Retirement Savings & Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust, Sauk Centre, Minnesota; to acquire 11.19 percent of the voting shares of Sauk Centre Financial Services, Inc., Sauk Centre, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire shares of Minnesota National Bank, Sauk Centre, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 4, 2017. Yao-Chin Chao, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09358 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0011; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 35] Submission for OMB Review; Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408) AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning preaward survey forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408). A notice was published in the Federal Register on November 8, 2016. No comments were received.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before June 8, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0011, Preaward Survey Forms, (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408)” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Sosa/IC 9000-0011.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0011, Preaward Survey Forms, (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408), in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cecelia L. Davis, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA, 202-219-0202 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Purpose

    To protect the Government's interest and to ensure timely delivery of items of the requisite quality, contracting officers, prior to award, must make an affirmative determination that the prospective contractor is responsible, i.e., capable of performing the contract. Before making such a determination, the contracting officer must have in his possession or must obtain information sufficient to satisfy himself that the prospective contractor: (i) Has adequate financial resources, or the ability to obtain such resources; (ii) is able to comply with required delivery schedule; (iii) has a satisfactory record of performance; (iv) has a satisfactory record of integrity; and (v) is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under appropriate laws and regulations. If such information is not in the contracting officer's possession, it is obtained through a preaward survey conducted by the contract administration office responsible for the plant and/or the geographic area in which the plant is located. The necessary data is collected by contract administration personnel from available data or through plant visits, phone calls, and correspondence. This data is entered on Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408 in detail commensurate with the dollar value and complexity of the procurement. These standard forms are not cumulative. The surveying activity completes only the applicable standard form(s) necessary to determine contractor responsibility in each case.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden Standard Form 1403—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor (General)

    Number of Respondents: 1,116.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 1,116.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 26,784.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Standard Form 1404—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Technical

    Number of Respondents: 558.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 558.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 13,392.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Standard Form 1405—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Production

    Number of Respondents: 372.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 372.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 8,928.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Standard Form 1406—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Quality Assurance

    Number of Respondents: 372.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 372.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 8,928.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Standard Form 1407—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Financial Capability

    Number of Respondents: 558.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 558.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 13,392.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Standard Form 1408—Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System

    Number of Respondents: 744.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 744.

    Hours per Response: 24.

    Total Burden Hours: 17,856.

    Frequency: On occasion.

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

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control Number 9000-0011, Preaward Survey Forms (Standard Forms 1403, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1407, and 1408), in all correspondence.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Lorin S. Curit, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09305 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following committee meeting:

    Time and Date: 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., EDT, June 6, 2017.

    Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    Status: Open to the public. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number, 1-866-659-0537 and the passcode is 9933701.

    Background: The Advisory Board was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines, which have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC).

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2016 pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will expire on September 30, 2017.

    Purpose: This Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advising the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the conference call includes: Reporting Final SEC Petition Vote Count from March ABRWH Meeting for Rocky Flats Plant SEC petition (Golden, CO) and Carborundum Company SEC petition (Niagara Falls, NY); Follow-up on ABRWH March Meeting Discussion on General Steel Industries Site Profile Review; Work Group and Subcommittee Reports; Status of SEC Petitions Update; Plans for the August 2017 Advisory Board Meeting; and Advisory Board Correspondence. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Theodore M. Katz, M.P.A., Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop: E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (513)533-6800, Toll Free 1-800-CDC-INFO, Email [email protected] The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09321 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Safety and Occupational Health Study Section (SOHSS), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH or Institute)

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting.

    Times and Dates: 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, June 20, 2017 (Closed); 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., EDT, June 21, 2017 (Closed)

    Place: Embassy Suites, 1900 Diagonal Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, Telephone: 703-684-5900, Fax: 703-684-0653.

    Purpose: The Safety and Occupational Health Study Section will review, discuss, and evaluate grant application(s) received in response to the Institute's standard grants review and funding cycles pertaining to research issues in occupational safety and health, and allied areas.

    It is the intent of NIOSH to support broad-based research endeavors in keeping with the Institute's program goals. This will lead to improved understanding and appreciation for the magnitude of the aggregate health burden associated with occupational injuries and illnesses, as well as to support more focused research projects, which will lead to improvements in the delivery of occupational safety and health services, and the prevention of work-related injury and illness. It is anticipated that research funded will promote these program goals.

    Matters for Discussion: The meeting will convene to address matters related to the conduct of Study Section business and for the study section to consider safety and occupational health-related grant applications.

    These portions of 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, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pursuant to Section 10(d) Public Law 92-463.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Price Connor, Ph.D., NIOSH Health Scientist, CDC, 2400 Executive Parkway, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, Telephone: (404) 498-2511, Fax: (404) 498-2571.

    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 CDC 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. 2017-09322 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Meeting of the National Advisory Council on Migrant Health AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Service Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled for the National Advisory Council on Migrant Health (NACMH/Council). This meeting will be open to the public. The agenda for the NACMH meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) or accessing the Council Web site: https://bphc.hrsa.gov/qualityimprovement/strategicpartnerships/nacmh/index.html.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on June 6, 2017, 8:30 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. and June 7, 2017, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The address for the meeting is Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, North Bethesda, Maryland 20852, (301) 822-9200.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    All requests for information regarding the NACMH should be sent to Esther Paul, DFO, NACMH, HRSA, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Esther Paul, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, 16N38B, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 594 4300; or (3) send an email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NACMH is a non-discretionary advisory body mandated by the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, Title 42 U.S.C. 218, to advise, consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS and the Administrator of HRSA regarding the organization, operation, selection, and funding of migrant health centers and other entities funded under section 330(g) of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254b). The NACMH Charter requires that the Council meet at least twice per year to discuss services and issues related to the health of migrant and seasonal agricultural workers and their families and to formulate their recommendations to the HHS Secretary and HRSA Administrator. The agenda includes an overview of the Council's general business activities. The Council will also hear presentations from Federal officials and experts on agricultural worker issues, including the status of agricultural worker health at the local and national levels. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.

    Public Participation: Members of the public will not be able to provide oral comments during the meeting. Please provide any written questions or comments for the NACMH to the DFO using the address and phone number provided above by May 23, 2017. Individuals who plan to attend the meeting and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the DFO at least 10 days prior to the meeting.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09329 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0014; OMB No. 1660-0016] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning information required by FEMA to revise National Flood Insurance Program Maps.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2017-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Koper, Emergency Management Specialist, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, DHS/FEMA, 202-646-3085. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at facsimile number (202) 646-3347 or email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is authorized by the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP and maintains the maps that depict flood hazard information. In 44 CFR 65.3, communities are required to submit technical information concerning flood hazards and plans to avoid potential flood hazards when physical changes occur. In 44 CFR 65.4, communities are provided the right to submit technical information when inconsistencies on maps are identified. In order to revise the Base (l-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), and floodways presented on the NFIP maps, a community must submit scientific or technical data demonstrating the need for a revision. The NFIP regulations cited in 44 CFR part 65 outline the data that must be submitted for these requests. This collection serves to provide a standard format for the general information requirements outlined in the NFIP regulations, and helps establish an organized package of the data needed to revise NFIP maps.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Revision to National Flood Insurance Program Maps: Application Forms and Instructions for LOMRs and CLOMRs.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0016.

    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 086-0-27, Overview and Concurrence Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27A, Riverine Hydrology and Hydraulics Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27B, Riverine Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27C, Coastal Analysis Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27D, Coastal Structures Form; FEMA Form 086-0-27E, Alluvial Fan Flooding Form.

    Abstract: The forms in this information collection are used to determine if the collected data will result in the modification of a BFE, a SFHA, or a floodway. Once the information is collected, it is submitted to FEMA for review and is subsequently included on the NFIP maps. Using these maps, lenders will determine the application of the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements, and insurance agents will determine actuarial flood insurance rates.

    Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Government and Business or Other for-Profit Institutes.

    Number of Respondents: 5,291.

    Number of Responses: 5,291.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 16,107.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the hour burden is $1,108,050. The cost to developers for engineer's services include scoping, surveying cross-sections, developing hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, and preparing work maps and reports documenting the engineering analysis and results is estimated to be $22,010,000. The cost to the Federal Government is $24,559.06.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: May 2, 2017. William H. Holzerland, Senior Director for Information Management, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09335 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID: FEMA-2017-0013; OMB No. 1660-0072] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Mitigation Grant Programs/e-Grants AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information necessary to implement grants for the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) program and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use only one of the following means to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2017-0013. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennie Orenstein, Branch Chief, HMA Division—Grants Policy, (202) 212-4071. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FMA program is authorized by Section 1366 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4104c. The FMA program, under 44 CFR part 79, provides funding for measures taken to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-141) eliminated the Repetitive Flood Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) programs, and made significant changes to the FMA program by consolidating the former RFC and SRL programs into FMA. Cost-share requirements were changed to allow more Federal funds for properties with repetitive flood claims.

    The PDM program is authorized by Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390, 114 Stat. 1553. It provides grants for cost-effective mitigation actions prior to a disaster event to reduce overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations.

    In accordance with OMB Circular A-102, FEMA requires that all parties interested in receiving FEMA mitigation grants submit an application package for grant assistance. Applications and subapplications for the PDM and FMA programs are submitted via the e-Grants system. The e-Grants system was developed and updated to meet the intent of the e-Government initiative, authorized by Public Law 106-107. This initiative required that all government agencies both streamline grant application processes and provide for the means to electronically create, review, and submit a grant application via the Internet. Title 2 CFR 200.335, promulgated in 2013, encourages Federal awarding agencies and non-Federal entities to, whenever practicable, collect, transmit, and store Federal award-related information in open and machine readable formats rather than in closed formats or on paper.

    FEMA is proposing to add a new form to this collection to better provide customer-centric clarity and uniformity in the way FEMA collects information on the progress of FMA/PDM-funded hazard mitigation projects. The new “Non-Disaster Quarterly Progress Report” form will replace the obsolete SF-425. Title 2 CFR 200.328 authorizes the collection of information on the progress of activities conducted under Federal awards.

    Collection of Information

    Title: Mitigation Grant Programs/e-Grants.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0072.

    FEMA Forms: A FEMA Form number for the new Non-Disaster Quarterly Progress Report form is currently pending.

    Abstract: FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance and Pre-Disaster Mitigation programs utilize an automated grant application and management system called e-Grants. These grant programs provide funding for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the risks to life and property from hazards. The e-Grants system includes all of the application information needed to apply for funding under these grant programs.

    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents: 56.

    Number of Responses: 4,200.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 18,088.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents is $893,366. The estimated annual cost to the Federal government is $6,598,456.16. There are no annual recordkeeping, capital, start-up, or operation and maintenance costs to respondents associated with this collection of information.

    Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    William H. Holzerland, Senior Director for Information Management, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09359 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-52-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket No. DHS-2017-0021] Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Science and Technology Directorate, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; notice of open federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Homeland Security Science and Technology Advisory Committee (HSSTAC) will meet via teleconference on Thursday, June 8, 2017. The meeting will be an open session.

    DATES:

    The HSSTAC teleconference meeting will take place Thursday, June 8, 2017 from 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. The meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    Members of the public may participate by teleconference but you must register. Please see the “REGISTRATION” section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Designated Federal Official, S&T IAO STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205, 202-254-8778 (Office), 202-254-6176 (Fax) [email protected] (Email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The committee addresses areas of interest and importance to the Under Secretary for Science and Technology (S&T), such as new developments in systems engineering, cyber-security, knowledge management and how best to leverage related technologies funded by other Federal agencies and by the private sector. It also advises the Under Secretary on policies, management processes, and organizational constructs as needed.

    II. Registration

    To pre-register for the teleconference please send an email to: [email protected] with the following subject line: RSVP to HSSTAC meeting. The email should include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, email address, and telephone number of those interested in attending. You must RSVP by June 7, 2017.

    For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Michel Kareis as soon as possible. Her contact information is listed above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    III. Public Comment

    At the end of the open session, there will be a period for oral statements. Please note that the comments period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for oral statements. To register as a speaker, contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    To facilitate public participation, we invite public comment on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the “Agenda” below. You are free to submit comments at any time, including orally at the meeting, but if you want committee members to review your comment before the meeting, written comments must be received by June 1, 2017. Please include the docket number (DHS-2017-0021) and submit via one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 202-254-6176.

    Mail: Michel Kareis, HSSTAC Executive Director, S&T IAO STOP 0205, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Washington, DC 20528-0205.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read the background documents or comments received by the HSSTAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number into the search function: DHS-2017-0021.

    Agenda: The session will begin with a discussion on the technical papers produced by the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) 2018 Subcommittee and follow on tasking. The committee will be voting on approval of the report created by the Subcommittee on Internet of Things (IOT). The Commercialization Subcommittee chair will update the committee on its report and recommendations. The Social Media Working Group for Emergency Services and Disaster Management (SMWG) will provide an update on the status of their activities and the FACA committee designation followed by a discussion on DHS S&T updates.

    A public comment period will be held at the end of the open session.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Michel Kareis, DHS Science and Technology Directorate, Research and Development Partnerships, Interagency Office.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09394 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9F-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue [Docket No. ONRR-2011-0012; DS63644000 DR2000000.CH7000 178D0102R2] Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone AGENCY:

    Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Final regulations for valuing gas produced from Indian leases, published August 10, 1999, require the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) to determine major portion prices and notify industry by publishing the prices in the Federal Register. The regulations also require ONRR to publish a due date for industry to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices. Consistent with these requirements, this notice provides major portion prices for the 12 months of calendar year 2015.

    DATES:

    The due date to pay additional royalties based on the major portion prices is July 31, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Curry, Manager, Denver B, Western Audit & Compliance, ONRR, at (303) 231-3741, fax to (303) 231-3455, or email to [email protected]; or John Davis, Denver B, Team 3, Western Audit & Compliance, ONRR, at (303) 231-3433, fax to (303) 231-3455, or email to [email protected] Mailing address: Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Western Audit & Compliance, Denver B, P.O. Box 25165, MS 62520B, Denver, Colorado 80225-0165.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On August 10, 1999, ONRR's predecessor, the Minerals Management Service, published a final rule titled “Amendments to Gas Valuation Regulations for Indian Leases” effective January 1, 2000 (64 FR 43506). The gas valuation regulations apply to all gas production from Indian (tribal or allotted) oil and gas leases, except leases on the Osage Indian Reservation.

    The regulations require ONRR to publish major portion prices for each designated area not associated with an index zone for each production month beginning January 2000, as well as the due date for additional royalty payments. See 30 CFR 1206.174(a)(4)(ii). If you owe additional royalties based on a published major portion price, you must submit to ONRR by the due date, an amended form ONRR-2014, Report of Sales and Royalty Remittance. If you do not pay the additional royalties by the due date, ONRR will bill you late payment interest under 30 CFR 1218.54. The interest will accrue from the due date until ONRR receives your payment and an amended form ONRR-2014. The table below lists the major portion prices for all designated areas not associated with an index zone. The due date is the end of the month following 60 days after the publication date of this notice.

    Gas Major Portion Prices ($/MMBtu) for Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index Zone ONRR-designated areas Jan 2015 Feb 2015 Mar 2015 Apr 2015 Blackfeet Reservation 1.88 1.78 1.70 1.47 Fort Belknap Reservation 4.54 4.44 4.45 4.14 Fort Berthold Reservation 3.04 2.65 2.94 2.24 Fort Peck Reservation 2.33 2.53 2.43 1.86 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 3.03 2.72 2.62 2.36 Turtle Mountain Reservation 2.39 2.72 2.87 2.17 ONRR-designated areas May 2015 Jun 2015 Jul 2015 Aug 2015 Blackfeet Reservation 1.90 1.67 1.80 1.82 Fort Belknap Reservation 4.31 4.44 4.53 4.60 Fort Berthold Reservation 2.12 2.33 2.35 2.39 Fort Peck Reservation 1.73 1.99 1.66 1.58 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 2.39 2.61 2.67 2.73 Turtle Mountain Reservation 2.16 2.37 2.35 2.43 ONRR-designated areas Sep 2015 Oct 2015 Nov 2015 Dec 2015 Blackfeet Reservation 1.76 1.57 1.49 1.26 Fort Belknap Reservation 4.41 4.35 4.18 4.19 Fort Berthold Reservation 2.20 2.22 1.92 1.88 Fort Peck Reservation 1.80 1.98 1.56 1.43 Navajo Allotted Leases in the Navajo Reservation 2.53 2.36 2.01 2.16 Turtle Mountain Reservation 2.24 2.26 1.95 1.94

    For information on how to report additional royalties due to major portion prices, please refer to our Dear Payor letter dated December 1, 1999, on the ONRR Web site at http://www.onrr.gov/ReportPay/PDFDocs/991201.pdf.

    Gregory J. Gould, Director for Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09326 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 332-227] Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act: Impact on U.S. Industries and Consumers and on Beneficiary Countries AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Cancellation of hearing.

    SUMMARY:

    The public hearing in this investigation scheduled for May 11, 2017, has been cancelled. The two interested parties that filed requests to appear at the hearing have withdrawn their requests to appear.

    DATES:

    May 18, 2017: Deadline for filing all written submissions.

    September 29, 2017: Transmittal of Commission report to Congress and the President.

    ADDRESSES:

    All Commission offices, including the Commission's hearing rooms, are located in the United States International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All written submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. The public file for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at https://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Project Leader Justino De La Cruz (202-205-3252 or [email protected]) or Deputy Project Leader Heather Wickramarachi (202-205-2699 or [email protected]) for information specific to this investigation. For information on the legal aspects of this investigation, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091 or [email protected]). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819 or [email protected]). Hearing-impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal at 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Web site at https://www.usitc.gov. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

    Background: Section 215(a)(1) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) (19 U.S.C. 2704(a)(1)) requires that the Commission submit biennial reports to the Congress and the President regarding the economic impact of the Act on U.S. industries and consumers, and on the economy of the beneficiary countries. Section 215(b)(1) requires that the reports include, but not be limited to, an assessment regarding:

    (A) The actual effect, during the period covered by the report, of [CBERA] on the United States economy generally, as well as on those specific domestic industries which produce articles that are like, or directly competitive with, articles being imported into the United States from beneficiary countries; and

    (B) the probable future effect which this Act will have on the United States economy generally, as well as on such domestic industries, before the provisions of this Act terminate.

    The report will cover trade with the 17 beneficiary countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, British Virgin Islands, Curaçao, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago. Notice of institution of the investigation was published in the Federal Register of May 14, 1986 (51 FR 17678). The Commission plans to transmit the 23rd report, covering calendar years 2015 and 2016, by September 29, 2017.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: May 3, 2017. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09300 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION Sunshine Act Meeting DATE AND TIME:

    The Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors will meet telephonically on Tuesday, May 23, 2017. Immediately following the Board of Directors telephonic meeting, the Operations and Regulations Committee will hold a telephonic meeting. The Board meeting will commence at 2:00 p.m., EDT, and the meetings will continue until the conclusion of the Committee's agenda.

    LOCATION:

    John N. Erlenborn Conference Room, Legal Services Corporation Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington DC 20007.

    PUBLIC OBSERVATION:

    Members of the public who are unable to attend in person but wish to listen to the public proceedings may do so by following the telephone call-in directions provided below.

    CALL-IN DIRECTIONS FOR OPEN SESSIONS:

    • Call toll-free number: 1-866-451-4981;

    • When prompted, enter the following numeric pass code: 5907707348

    • When connected to the call, please immediately “MUTE” your telephone.

    Members of the public are asked to keep their telephones muted to eliminate background noises. To avoid disrupting the meeting, please refrain from placing the call on hold if doing so will trigger recorded music or other sound. From time to time, the Chair may solicit comments from the public. STATUS OF MEETINGS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Board of Directors

    1. Approval of agenda.

    2. Consider and act on the Board of Directors' transmittal to accompany the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the period of October 1, 2016 through March 30, 2017.

    3. Public comment.

    4. Consider and act on other business.

    5. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting.

    Operations and Regulations Committee—briefing materials will be posted at http://www.lsc.gov/about-lsc/board/board-meetings.

    1. Approval of agenda.

    2. Consider Rulemaking for 45 CFR part 1630 and 1631—Costs and Property.

    • Ron Flagg, General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs.

    • Stefanie Davis, Assistant General Counsel.

    3. Public comment.

    4. Consider and act on other business.

    5. Consider and act on adjournment of meeting.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION:

    Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President & General Counsel, at (202) 295-1500. Questions may be sent by electronic mail to [email protected]

    ACCESSIBILITY:

    LSC complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. Upon request, meeting notices and materials will be made available in alternative formats to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Individuals needing other accommodations due to disability in order to attend the meeting in person or telephonically should contact Katherine Ward, at (202) 295-1500 or [email protected], at least 2 business days in advance of the meeting. If a request is made without advance notice, LSC will make every effort to accommodate the request but cannot guarantee that all requests can be fulfilled.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Katherine Ward, Executive Assistant to the Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09427 Filed 5-5-17; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS U.S. Copyright Office [Docket No. 2017-5] Pilot Program for Bulk Submission of Claims to Copyright AGENCY:

    U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Public notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Copyright Office is announcing a pilot program that will allow for the bulk submission of claims to copyright in certain limited types of literary works. Specifically, at this time, the pilot program is limited to claims to single literary works that have a single author, where all content that appears in the work was created and is owned solely by that single author. Applicants that participate in the pilot will be required to provide author, title, and other pertinent information for each work they submit. And they will be required to upload a copy of each work and pay the appropriate filing fee. But they will be able to bypass the Office's online interface and transmit their claims directly into the electronic registration system, instead of filing them on an individual basis. To participate in the pilot, applicants would have to comply with certain technical requirements, which are discussed below. The Office is offering this pilot as part of its continuing effort to increase the efficiency of the registration system for both applicants and the Office alike.

    ADDRESSES:

    Entities interested in participating in the pilot program should contact the Copyright Office by submitting their contact information, as well as a description of the type of works sought to be registered and anticipated volume, in the form located at https://www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/bulk-submission. The Copyright Office will contact interested parties after receiving this information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 202-707-8350, or Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register and Director of Registration Policy and Practice by telephone at 202-707-8040.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 2013, the U.S. Copyright Office began to identify and evaluate potential improvements and technical enhancements to the information technology platforms that support its electronic registration system. As part of this effort, the Office sought public comment on how stakeholders use the Office's online system, known as “eCO,” and whether the system meets or fails to meet user expectations. The Office also sought input on the types of online services that stakeholders would like to see in the future. See 78 FR 17722 (Mar. 22, 2013).

    The Office received input from various stakeholders, including copyright owners, users of copyright records, technical experts, public interest organizations, professional associations, and small businesses. One recommendation that the Office frequently heard was the need for bulk data transfer between interested parties and the Office. Stakeholders predicted that “system-to-system” or “business-to-business” transfers would allow applicants to submit large quantities of electronic material and associated application data to the Office. They encouraged the Office to take an active role in facilitating this type of data exchange by adopting standards-based protocols, such as ebMS, SOAP, and AS4. 78 FR at 17722, 17723.

    In February 2015, the Chief Information Officer for the Copyright Office issued a report that offered several recommendations for creating a better user interface and a better public record. See U.S. Copyright Office, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Report and Recommendations of the Technical Upgrades Special Project Team (Feb. 2015), available at http://copyright.gov/docs/technical_upgrades/usco-technicalupgrades.pdf (hereinafter “Technical Upgrades Report”). With respect to the electronic registration system, the report recommended that the Office establish a short-term pilot, using the Office's existing registration system, allowing for the bulk submission of copyright claims from select parties, while maintaining the long-term goal of eventually allowing “open and easy bulk submission” from any interested party in a future registration system. Id. at 10, 72. The report predicted that bulk submission would reduce the amount of manual labor involved in submitting claims, and improve the quality of the data that the Office receives. The report encouraged the Office to initiate a pilot “sooner rather than later,” but acknowledged that “such a critical initiative should not be undertaken without proper planning.” Id. at 69-70.

    The pilot program described in this Notice of Inquiry represents a first step in implementing this recommendation. It also represents a step towards the Office's ultimate goal of developing “a robust and flexible technology enterprise that is dedicated to the current and future needs of a modern copyright agency.” U.S. Copyright Office, Strategic Plan 2016-2020: Positioning the United States Copyright Office for the Future, at 35 (Dec. 1, 2015), available at http://www.copyright.gov/reports/strategic-plan/sp-2016-2020.html.

    This pilot program will be very limited in scope. It will be available only for claims to single literary works that have a single author, where all content that appears in the work was created and is owned solely by that single author.

    Works Eligible for Bulk Submission

    Applicants can register most types of works through the eCO system.1 But they must file their claims through the Office's Web site, and each claim must be submitted on an individual basis. Many stakeholders complain that this system is cumbersome and difficult to use. Technical Upgrades Report at 18; 78 FR at 17723.

    1 As the Office noted in a recent rulemaking, applicants currently must file a paper application to seek a supplementary registration, a renewal registration, or a basic registration for a mask work, a vessel design, a foreign work restored to copyright protection under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, and certain types of databases. See 81 FR 86656, 86657-58 (Dec. 1, 2016).

    Applicants that have been accepted into the pilot program will be able to bypass the Office's Web site and the eCO interface. Instead, they will transmit their claims directly into the electronic registration system through a separate portal. And they will be able to submit multiple batches of claims, instead of filing them one by one.

    The pilot is intended for applicants that routinely submit large numbers of claims, either on their own behalf or on behalf of other parties. As with any other claim, applicants will be required to provide the information called for in the application, including the author, title, and other pertinent details about each work. But they will be able to send this information in a single transmission instead of preparing separate submissions for each work. Applicants will be required to pay the appropriate filing fee for each claim, but they will be able to pay these fees with a single deduction from their deposit account instead of making separate payments. Finally, applicants will be required to upload a complete electronic copy of each work. But they will be able to bundle these copies together and send them in a single package, instead of uploading each copy individually. Once these materials have been received, the electronic registration system will match each electronic copy with the corresponding application information for that work.

    To be clear, the Office is not creating a new group registration option. The pilot is simply intended to facilitate the submission of large numbers of individual claims that would otherwise be submitted one by one. When the Office receives a bulk submission it will examine each work on an individual basis to determine if it meets the eligibility requirements established for the pilot, and if the other formal and legal requirements have been met. If so, the Office will issue a separate certificate of registration for each work.

    As noted above, applicants may be eligible for the bulk submission option only if their claims satisfy certain requirements. Specifically, each claim must be limited to one literary work. Each work must be created by one individual, all the content that appears in the work must be created by that individual, and that individual must be the sole owner of all rights in the work. In this respect, the pilot program will mirror the eligibility requirements that apply when a literary work is submitted with the Single Application. Likewise, the filing fee for claims submitted through the pilot will match the fee that currently applies to the Single Application, namely $35 for each work. The deposit for each work must be uploaded as one PDF file.

    If the Office determines that a particular work does not satisfy these eligibility requirements, it will refuse to register the claim. In particular, works made for hire will not be eligible for the pilot. A work created by two or more individuals will not be eligible. A work will not be eligible if the deposit contains material created by two or more authors (even if the applicant only intends to register material created by one of those individuals). For the same reason, a derivative work will not be eligible if it is based on a preexisting work by a different author. A work created by one individual will not be eligible if the author transferred his or her rights to another party or if the work is co-owned by two or more parties. Claims involving collective works, an unpublished collection, a unit or publication, a Web site, a database, or other multiple works also will not be eligible for the pilot.

    The Office is limiting the pilot to literary works at this time, because they account for the largest number of claims submitted through the eCO system in any given year. For example, in Fiscal Year 2016, the Office received more than 180,000 literary claims, which represent roughly 36% of the electronic claims submitted during that period. At the same time, the Office must balance the administrative burden that bulk submission may impose on the Office. The Office decided to limit the pilot to works that satisfy the eligibility requirements for the Single Application in part because these claims tend to be less complex than claims involving multiple works, multiple authors, and/or multiple owners. If the pilot is successful, the Office may consider expanding this option to include other types of works.

    Participation in the Pilot Program

    This Notice provides a general overview of how the pilot program is expected to work. Participants will be allowed to join the pilot only if they cooperate with and obtain approval from the Office's technology staff during each phase. The Office may also limit the total number of participants based on its available resources and the volume of claims that each party plans to submit.

    Briefly stated, the Office will create a separate portal into the eCO system for each participant. In addition, the Office will provide participants with an XML (extensive markup language) schema that identifies the type of data that must be included in each submission. The schema will call for a unique tracking number that will be assigned to each claim. It will contain a field for the deposit account that will be used to pay the filing fee for each claim. And it will contain data fields that match the corresponding fields in the Single Application for literary works. These fields include the type of work; title of work; completion date; publication status; name of author, claimant, and correspondent; and the name of the person who certified the application.2

    2 The schema also will include optional fields for limiting the claim, providing rights and permissions information, and requesting special handling.

    Each participant will develop its own internal systems for collecting this data. In addition, each participant will create a secure gateway—in close consultation with the Office's technology staff—that will be used to transmit this data to the Office. Participants will be required to conduct extensive testing to confirm that their gateway is compatible with the eCO system before they will be allowed to use the bulk submission option.

    Once it has been tested and approved, the gateway will be attached to the portal and will interact directly with the eCO system. Briefly stated, participants will transmit streams of data through the gateway in an XML format using the HTTPS secure transport protocol. Participants will use the HTTP “POST” method to submit an electronic copy of each work in a PDF format. The Office does not plan to limit the number of claims that may be included within each submission, but each batch must include a header that identifies the total number of claims contained therein.

    Once the XML stream and the electronic copies have been sent through the gateway, the participant will receive an email notification acknowledging the receipt of the transmission. Before the transmission is entered into the eCO system, the Office will scan it for potential security issues, such as the presence of malicious code. Next, the transmission will be scanned to determine if (i) there is a sufficient amount of money in the participant's deposit account to cover the filing fees, (ii) a copy of each work has been submitted, and (iii) the electronic copies can be linked to the corresponding data file for each work. If not, the system will reject the entire batch and send an email notification to the participant. Finally, the system will scan each transmission to determine if any information appears to be missing from the claims, such as the author or title of a particular work. If so, the system will send an email notification to the participant regarding that claim. In such cases, the participant will need to correct the issue and resubmit the claim in another bulk submission.3

    3 Alternatively, the participant could file a separate application for that claim by submitting an application deposit and filing fee through the Office's Web site.

    If the transmission is accepted, the XML streams will auto-populate the corresponding fields within the electronic registration system. The tracking number for each work will be used to connect the electronic copies with the corresponding data file for that work. The eCO system will assign a service request number to each claim, and eventually they will be distributed to an examiner—just like any other claim that is submitted through the Office's Web site. If the claims are approved, the Office will send a certificate of registration to the person named in the correspondent field.

    Parties that are interested in participating in this pilot program should contact the Copyright Office using the contact information in the ADDRESSES section above.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Sarang V. Damle, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09317 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-P
    NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES National Endowment for the Arts Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request SUMMARY:

    The National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, will submit the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35): Application for International Indemnification. Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained at www.reginfo.gov.

    Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the National Endowment for the Arts, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202/395-4718). Copies of any comments should be provided to Patricia Loiko (National Endowment for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20506). To be assured of consideration, comments should be submitted to OMB within thirty days of this publication in the Federal Register.

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is particularly interested in comments which:

    —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) requests the review of its application guidelines. This entry is issued by the NEA and contains the following information: (1) The title of the form; (2) how often the required information must be reported; (3) who will be required or asked to report; (4) what the form will be used for; (5) an estimate of the number of responses; (6) the average burden hours per response; (7) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the form. This entry is not subject to 44 U.S.C. 3504(h).

    Agency: National Endowment for the Arts.

    Title: Application for International Indemnification.

    OMB Number: 3135-0094.

    Frequency: Renewed every three years.

    Affected Public: Non-profit, tax exempt organizations, and governmental units.

    Number of Respondents: 40 per year.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 45 hours.

    Estimate Cost per Respondent: $2,097.

    Total Burden Hours: 1800.

    Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs: 0.

    Total Annual Costs (Operating/Maintaining Systems or Purchasing Services): $121,200.

    Description: This application form is used by non-profit, tax-exempt organizations (primarily museums), and governmental units to apply to the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities (through the NEA) for indemnification of eligible works of art and artifacts, borrowed from lenders in the United States for exhibition in the United States. The indemnity agreement is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. In the event of loss or damage to an indemnified object, the Federal Council certifies the validity of the claim and requests payment from Congress. 20 U.S.C. 973 et seq. requires such an application and specifies information which must be supplied. This statutory requirement is implemented by regulation at 45 CFR 1160.4.

    Dated: May 4, 2017. Kathy Daum, Director, Administrative Services Office, National Endowment for the Arts.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09333 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on APR1400 will hold a meeting May 18-19, 2017, at 11545 Rockville Pike, Room T-2B1, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    The meeting will be open to public attendance. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:

    Thursday, May 18, 2017—8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.; Friday, May 19, 2017—8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.

    The Subcommittee will review the APR1400 DCD Review—Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems” and Chapter 15, “Transient and Accident Analyses.” The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with the NRC staff and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Company regarding this matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the Full Committee.

    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official (DFO), Christopher Brown (Telephone 301-415-7111 or Email: [email protected]) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Thirty-five hard copies of each presentation or handout should be provided to the DFO thirty minutes before the meeting. In addition, one electronic copy of each presentation should be emailed to the DFO one day before the meeting. If an electronic copy cannot be provided within this timeframe, presenters should provide the DFO with a CD containing each presentation at least thirty minutes before the meeting. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Detailed procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the Federal Register on October 17, 2016, (81 FR 71543).

    Detailed meeting agendas and meeting transcripts are available on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs. Information regarding topics to be discussed, changes to the agenda, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the time allotted to present oral statements can be obtained from the Web site cited above or by contacting the identified DFO. Moreover, in view of the possibility that the schedule for ACRS meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend should check with these references if such rescheduling would result in a major inconvenience.

    If attending this meeting, please enter through the One White Flint North building, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. After registering with Security, please contact Mr. Theron Brown (Telephone 240-888-9835) to be escorted to the meeting room.

    Dated: May 3, 2017. Mark L. Banks, Chief, Technical Support Branch, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09362 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0112] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from April 11 to April 24, 2017. The last biweekly notice was published on April 25, 2017.

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by June 8, 2017. A request for a hearing must be filed by July 10, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0112. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T-8-D36M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Janet Burkhardt, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1384, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0112, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0112.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0112, facility name, unit number(s), plant docket number, application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 10, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection in ADAMS and at the NRC's PDR. For additional direction on obtaining information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370, McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: December 19, 2016. A publicly available version is in Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML16363A349.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would modify Technical Specification (TS) 5.5.2, “Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,” by replacing the reference to Regulatory Guide 1.163, “Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program,” with a reference to Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,” dated July 2012, and the conditions and limitations specified in NEI 94-01, Revision 2-A, “Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J,” dated October 2008, as the implementation documents used by McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, to implement the performance-based leakage testing program in accordance with Option B of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix J. The proposed change would also delete the listing of one-time exceptions previously granted to Integrated Leak Rate Test (ILRT) test frequency.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) involves the extension of the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. Extensions of up to nine months (total maximum interval of 84 months for Type C tests) are permissible only for non-routine emergent conditions.

    The proposed extension does not involve either a physical change to the plant or a change in the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled. The containment is designed to provide an essentially leak tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment for postulated accidents. The containment and the testing requirements invoked to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and do not involve the prevention or identification of any precursors of an accident. The change in dose risk for changing the Type A test frequency from three-per-ten years to once-per-fifteen years, measured, as an increase to the total integrated plant risk for those accident sequences influenced by Type A testing, is 0.032 person-rem/year. [Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)] Report No. 1009325, Revision 2-A states that a very small population dose is defined as an increase of ≤ 1.0 person-rem per year, or ≤1% of the total population dose, whichever is less restrictive for the risk impact assessment of the extended ILRT intervals.

    Therefore, this proposed extension does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.

    As documented in NUREG-1493, Type Band C tests have identified a very large percentage of containment leakage paths, and the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is very small. The MNS Type A test history supports this conclusion.

    The integrity of the containment is subject to, two types of failure mechanisms that can be categorized as: (1) Activity based, and; (2) time based. Activity based failure mechanisms are defined as degradation due to system and/or component modifications or maintenance. Local leak rate test requirements and administrative controls such as configuration management and procedural requirements for system restoration ensure that containment integrity is not degraded by plant modifications or maintenance activities. The design and construction requirements of the containment combined with the containment inspections performed in accordance with [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, the Maintenance Rule, and TS requirements serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by a Type A test.

    Based on the above, the proposed extensions do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that have already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that has no effect on any component and no impact on how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to the TS involves the extension of the MNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. The containment and the testing requirements to periodically demonstrate the integrity of the containment exist to ensure the plant's ability to mitigate the consequences of an accident do not involve any accident precursors or initiators. The proposed change does not involve a physical change to the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change to the manner in which the plant is operated or controlled.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that will be superseded by this activity; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action that does not result in any change in how the units are operated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment to TS 5.5.2 involves the extension of the MNS Type A containment integrated leak rate test interval to 15 years and the extension of the Type C test interval to 75 months for selected components. The current Type A test interval of 120 months (10 years) would be extended on a permanent basis to no longer than 15 years from the last Type A test. The current Type C test interval of 60 months for selected components would be extended on a performance basis to no longer than 75 months. This amendment does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system set points, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The specific requirements and conditions of the TS Containment Leak Rate Testing Program exist to ensure that the degree of containment structural integrity and leak tightness that is considered in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The overall containment leak rate limit specified by TS is maintained.

    The proposed change involves only the extension of the interval between Type A containment leak rate tests, and Type C tests for MNS. The proposed surveillance interval extension is bounded by the 15-year ILRT interval, and the 75-month Type C test interval currently authorized within NEI 94-01, Revision 3-A. Industry experience supports the conclusion that Type B and C testing detects a large percentage of containment leakage paths and that the percentage of containment leakage paths that are detected only by Type A testing is small. The containment inspections performed in accordance with [American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,] Section XI, TS and the Maintenance Rule serve to provide a high degree of assurance that the containment would not degrade in a manner that is detectable only by Type A testing. The combination of these factors ensures that the margin of safety in the plant safety analysis is maintained. The design, operation, testing methods and acceptance criteria for Type A, B, and C containment leakage tests specified in applicable codes and standards would continue to be met, with the acceptance of this proposed change, since these are not affected by changes to the Type A, and Type C test intervals.

    The proposed amendment also deletes an exception previously granted to allow one-time extensions of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 ILRT test frequency for MNS. This exception was for activities that have already taken place; therefore, their deletion is solely an administrative action and does not change how the units are operated and maintained. Thus, there is no reduction in any margin of safety.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Kate B. Nolan, Deputy General Counsel, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,

    550 South Tryon Street—DEC45A, Charlotte, NC 28202-1802.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-456 and STN 50-457, Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, Will County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. STN 50-454 and STN 50-455, Byron Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Ogle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-317 and 50-318, Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Calvert County, Maryland Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-461, Clinton Power Station, Unit No. 1, DeWitt County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-237 and 50-249, Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3, Grundy County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, LaSalle County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-220 and 50-410, Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Oswego County, New York Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York and Lancaster Counties, Pennsylvania Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265, Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2, Rock Island County, Illinois Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-244, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, Wayne County, New York Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania

    Date of amendment request: March 28, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17087A028.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise the technical specifications (TSs) based on Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) Traveler TSTF-529, “Clarify Use and Application Rules” (ADAMS Accession No. ML16062A271). The changes would revise and clarify the TS usage rules for completion times, limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), and surveillance requirements (SRs).

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to [TS] Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 have no effect on the requirement for systems to be Operable and have no effect on the application of TS actions. The proposed change to SR 3.0.3 (or equivalent) states that the allowance may only be used when there is a reasonable expectation the surveillance will be met when performed. Since the proposed changes do not significantly affect system Operability, the proposed changes will have no significant effect on the initiating events for accidents previously evaluated and will have no significant effect on the ability of the systems to mitigate accidents previously evaluated.

    Therefore, it is concluded that these changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to the TS usage rules do not affect the design or function of any plant systems. The proposed changes do not change the Operability requirements for plant systems or the actions taken when plant systems are not operable.

    Therefore, it is concluded that the changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes clarify the application of [TS] Section 1.3 and LCO 3.0.4 and do not result in changes in plant operation. SR 3.0.3 (or equivalent) is revised to allow application of SR 3.0.3 when an SR has not been previously performed if there is reasonable expectation that the SR will be met when performed. This expands the use of SR 3.0.3 while ensuring the affected system is capable of performing its safety function. As a result, plant safety is either improved or unaffected.

    Therefore, it is concluded that the changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendments involve no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Tamra Domeyer, Associate General Counsel, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, 4300 Winfield Road, Warrenville, IL 60555.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    Northern States Power Company—Minnesota (NSPM), Docket No. 50-263, Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP), Wright County, Minnesota

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17083A083.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would revise the emergency plan (E-Plan) for MNGP. The proposed revisions to the E-Plan are discussed in Section 2.1, “Proposed Changes,” of the March 24, 2017, letter and include extending staff augmentation times for Emergency Response Organization (ERO) response functions as well as other changes.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed increase in staff augmentation times has no effect on normal plant operation or on any accident initiator or precursors and does not impact the function of plant structures, systems, or components (SSCs).

    The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the on-shift ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.

    The ability of the ERO to respond adequately to radiological emergencies has been demonstrated as acceptable through a staffing analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A.9.

    Therefore, the proposed E-Plan changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change does not impact any accident analysis. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed), a change in the method of plant operation, or new operator actions. The proposed change does not introduce failure modes that could result in a new accident, and the change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. The proposed change increases the staff augmentation response times in the E-Plan, which are demonstrated as acceptable through a functional analysis as required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section IV.A.9. The proposed change does not alter or prevent the ability of the ERO to perform their intended functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident or event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (i.e., fuel cladding, reactor coolant system pressure boundary, and containment structure) to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The proposed change is associated with the E-Plan staffing and does not impact operation of the plant or its response to transients or accidents. The change does not affect the Technical Specifications. The proposed change does not involve a change in the method of plant operation, and no accident analyses will be affected by the proposed change. Safety analysis acceptance criteria are not affected by this proposed change. The proposed revisions to the E-Plan continue to provide the necessary response staff with the proposed change.

    A staffing analysis and a functional analysis were performed for the proposed change focusing on the timeliness of performing major tasks for the functional areas of E-Plan. The analysis concluded that an extension in staff augmentation times would not significantly affect the ability to perform the required E-Plan tasks. Therefore, the proposed change is determined to not adversely affect the ability to meet 10 CFR 50.54(q)(2), the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix E, and the emergency planning standards as described in 10 CFR 50.47 (b).

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Peter M. Glass, Assistant General Counsel, Xcel Energy Services, Inc., 414 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55401.

    NRC Branch Chief: David J. Wrona.

    PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket No. 50-354, Hope Creek Generating Station, Salem County, New Jersey

    Date of amendment request: March 27, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17086A071.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment would revise the Hope Creek Generating Station Technical Specifications by adopting Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Change Traveler TSTF-535, Revision 0, “Revise Shutdown Margin Definition to Address Advanced Fuel Designs” (ADAMS Accession No. ML112200436). Specifically, the proposed amendment would modify the Technical Specification definition of “Shutdown Margin” (SDM) to require calculation of the SDM at a reactor moderator temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit or a higher temperature that represents the most reactive state throughout the operating cycle.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. SDM is not an initiator of any accident previously evaluated. Accordingly, the proposed change to the definition of SDM has no effect on the probability of any accident previously evaluated. SDM is an assumption in the analysis of some previously evaluated accidents and inadequate SDM could lead to an increase in consequences of those accidents. However, the proposed change revises the SDM definition to ensure that the correct SDM is determined for all fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle. As a result, the proposed change does not adversely affect the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis regarding SDM.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the definition of SDM. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The proposed change ensures that the SDM assumed in determining safety limits, limiting safety system settings or limiting conditions for operation is correct for all BWR [boiling-water reactor] fuel types at all times during the fuel cycle.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jeffrie J. Keenan, PSEG Nuclear LLC—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038.

    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Units 2 and 3, Fairfield County, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: March 30, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17089A687.

    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3, which identifies Class 1E divisional cables in various Auxiliary Building fire areas, and involves changes to related Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed activity revises Table 3.3-3 to add a second note, Note 2, identifying that Class 1E Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) interdivisional fiber-optic cables are terminated in the identified Auxiliary Building fire areas, in addition to the cable divisions currently listed for these areas. “Interdivisional” cables are defined as cables that interconnect PMS divisions, including Division A, B, C, and D cables.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not involve any accidents which are previously evaluated. The interdivisional cables provide signals associated with some safe shutdown functions in accordance with UFSAR Subsection 7.4.1.1, which describes safe shutdown functions using safety-related systems. Therefore, these cables are required for safe shutdown. Accident analyses as described in UFSAR Ch. 15 are not changed as fire-related events in the Auxiliary Building are evaluated separately in UFSAR Appendix 9A for plant safe shutdown. A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is not assumed in this evaluation. Voting logic for PMS control functions is not adversely affected as the fiber-optic cables associated with these PMS cabinets in the specified fire areas function using two-out-of-four (2oo4), 2oo3, or 1oo2 logic. Redundant cable divisions which support PMS functions are routed separately in other fire areas and will not be affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. PMS setpoints for reactor trip functions and engineered safeguards features (ESF) functions as described in UFSAR Table 15.0-4a are not changed as functions provided by the PMS cabinets and cables are not adversely affected. PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. Existing accidents previously evaluated are not affected and do not require further analysis. As described in Appendix 9A, in no case does the spurious actuation of equipment prevent safe shutdown. This conclusion remains valid for the proposed changes.

    Changes to the safe shutdown evaluation account for interdivisional fiber-optic cables inside of divisional fire areas; however, safe shutdown functions are not changed. Loss of interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not a reduction in the safety of the plant as the PMS is designed to operate despite the loss of an entire division. Furthermore, fire protection analyses as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A are not adversely affected by this activity as fire protection requirements and equipment are not changed. Conclusions of the associated safe shutdown evaluations are not changed. No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely affected by this change. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the plant-specific UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes as the changes do not modify any SSCs. The existing interdivisional fiber-optic Class 1E cable routing is acceptable because redundant PMS divisions are routed in separate fire areas and can perform safe shutdown functions as required. Redundant cable divisions will not be affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. PMS control functions continue being performed using reduced coincidence logic in the event of a fire when a single division is lost.

    The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. Safe shutdown functions are not changed as a result of this activity as the loss of an entire divisional room does not disable safe shutdown functions. Separation of cables in the designated Auxiliary Building fire areas is not adversely impacted. A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is not assumed in this evaluation as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A. There is no adverse impact to any other fire areas or safe shutdown functions listed in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A. Changes to the identified cables in the specified fire areas do not affect the operator's ability to safely shut down the plant in the event of a fire. Safe shutdown conclusions identified for each fire area is not changed by these activities as safe shutdown functions are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A design information, including fire areas 1201 AF 02, 1201 AF 03, 1202 AF 03, and 1202 AF 04, do not adversely affect the safety-related functions of the safe shutdown Class 1E divisions or any function associated with safe shutdown. Interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not adversely affected and plant control functions are not changed as PMS is designed to operate with a loss of a single division. This activity does not reduce the margin of safety regarding fire protection within the plant. The changes do not affect any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Redundant cables are terminated in other fire areas. Voting logic for actuation of PMS control functions is not changed and plant responses to potential spurious actuation are not adversely affected by these activities.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Ms. Kathryn M. Sutton, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLC, 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004-2514.

    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: April 6, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17096A765.

    Description of amendment request: The requested amendment proposes changes to combined license (COL) Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3, which identifies Class 1E divisional cables in various Auxiliary Building fire areas, and involves changes to related Tier 2 information in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed activity revises Table 3.3-3 to add a second note, Note 2, identifying that Class 1E Protection and Safety Monitoring System (PMS) interdivisional fiber-optic cables are terminated in the identified Auxiliary Building fire areas, in addition to the cable divisions currently listed for these areas. “Interdivisional” cables are defined as cables that interconnect PMS divisions, including Division A, B, C, and D cables.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not involve any accidents which are previously evaluated. The interdivisional cables provide signals associated with some safe shutdown functions in accordance with UFSAR Subsection 7.4.1.1, which describes safe shutdown functions using safety-related systems. Therefore, these cables are required for safe shutdown. Accident analyses as described in UFSAR Ch. 15 are not changed as fire-related events in the Auxiliary Building are evaluated separately in UFSAR Appendix 9A for plant safe shutdown. A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is not assumed in this evaluation. Voting logic for PMS control functions is not adversely affected as the fiber-optic cables associated with these PMS cabinets in the specified fire areas function using two-out-of-four (2oo4), two-out-of-three (2oo3), or one-out-of-two (1oo2) logic. Redundant cable divisions which support PMS functions are routed separately in other fire areas and will not be affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. PMS setpoints for reactor trip functions and engineered safeguards features (ESF) functions as described in UFSAR Table 15.0-4a are not changed as functions provided by the PMS cabinets and cables are not adversely affected. PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. Existing accidents previously evaluated are not affected and do not require further analysis. As described in Appendix 9A, in no case does the spurious actuation of equipment prevent safe shutdown. This conclusion remains valid for the proposed changes.

    Changes to the safe shutdown evaluation account for interdivisional fiber-optic cables inside of divisional fire areas; however, safe shutdown functions are not changed. Loss of interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not a reduction in the safety of the plant as the PMS is designed to operate despite the loss of an entire division. Furthermore, fire protection analyses as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A are not adversely affected by this activity as fire protection requirements and equipment are not changed. Conclusions of the associated safe shutdown evaluations are not changed. No safety-related structure, system, component (SSC) or function is adversely affected by this change. The change does not involve an interface with any SSC accident initiator or initiating sequence of events, and thus, the probabilities of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected. The proposed changes do not involve a change to the predicted radiological releases due to postulated accident conditions, thus, the consequences of the accidents evaluated in the UFSAR are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A do not affect any safety-related equipment, and do not add any new interfaces to safety-related SSCs. No system or design function or equipment qualification is affected by these changes as the changes do not modify any SSCs. The existing interdivisional fiber-optic Class 1E cable routing is acceptable because redundant PMS divisions are routed in separate fire areas and can perform safe shutdown functions as required. Redundant cable divisions will not be affected in the event of a fire in one of the identified fire areas. PMS is designed to operate with the loss of a single division. PMS control functions continue being performed using reduced coincidence logic in the event of a fire when a single division is lost.

    The changes do not introduce a new failure mode, malfunction or sequence of events that could affect safety or safety-related equipment. Safe shutdown functions are not changed as a result of this activity as the loss of an entire divisional room does not disable safe shutdown functions. Separation of cables in the designated Auxiliary Building fire areas is not adversely impacted. A concurrent single active component failure independent of a fire is not assumed in this evaluation as described in UFSAR Appendix 9A. There is no adverse impact to any other fire areas or safe shutdown functions listed in COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A. Changes to the identified cables in the specified fire areas do not affect the operator's ability to safely shut down the plant in the event of a fire. Safe shutdown conclusions identified for each fire area are not changed by these activities as safe shutdown functions are not affected.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The changes to COL Appendix C (and plant-specific Tier 1) Table 3.3-3 and UFSAR Appendix 9A design information, including fire areas 1201 AF 02, 1201 AF 03, 1202 AF 03, and 1202 AF 04, do not adversely affect the safety-related functions of the safe shutdown Class 1E divisions or any function associated with safe shutdown. Interdivisional fiber-optic cabling is not adversely affected and plant control functions are not changed as PMS is designed to operate with a loss of a single division. This activity does not reduce the margin of safety regarding fire protection within the plant. The changes do not affect any other safety-related equipment or fission product barriers. The requested changes will not affect any design code, function, design analysis, safety analysis input or result, or design/safety margin. No safety analysis or design basis acceptance limit/criterion is challenged or exceeded by the requested changes. Redundant cables are terminated in other fire areas. Voting logic for actuation of PMS control functions is not changed and plant responses to potential spurious actuation are not adversely affected by these activities.

    Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, 1710 Sixth Avenue North, Birmingham, AL 35203-2015.

    NRC Branch Chief: Jennifer Dixon-Herrity.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Houston County, Alabama

    Date of amendment request: March 22, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17081A484.

    Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.1, “Main Steam Safety Valves (MSSVs),” to resolve a non-conservative moderator temperature coefficient value.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting a non-conservative value. The proposed TS change does not introduce new equipment or new equipment operating modes, nor does the proposed change alter existing system relationships. The proposed change does not affect normal plant operation. Further, the proposed change does not increase the likelihood of the malfunction of any system, structure, or component, or negatively impact any analyzed accident. This change corrects the TS to ensure all associated accident analyses are adequately considered. The probability of an accident previously evaluated is not affected and there is no significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting a non-conservative value. The change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (i.e., no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operations. The proposed change does not alter assumptions made in the safety analysis. Further, the proposed change does not introduce new accident initiators.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The proposed change revises the TS for the purpose of correcting a non-conservative value. The proposed change does not alter the manner in which safety limits, limiting safety system settings, or limiting conditions for operation are determined. The safety analysis assumptions and acceptance criteria are not affected by this change.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., 40 Inverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425, Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Burke County, Georgia

    Date of amendment request: March 24, 2017. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17083B097.

    Description of amendment request: The amendments would revise Technical Specification 3.7.9, “Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS),” to extend the Completion Time to restore one inoperable nuclear service cooling water (NSCW) basin transfer pump from 31 days to 46 days. In addition, a new Condition is added to address two inoperable NSCW basin transfer pumps.

    Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

    1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    The proposed amendment does not affect accident initiators or precursors nor adversely alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility. The proposed amendment does not alter any plant equipment or operating practices with respect to such initiators or precursors in a manner that the probability of an accident is increased.

    The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer pump is allowed to be inoperable and provides remedial action requirements when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The proposed amendment does not involve a physical change to the NSCW system, nor does it change the safety function of the NSCW system or the equipment supported by the NSCW system. The UHS will remain capable of responding to a design basis event during the period of time both NSCW basin transfer pumps are unavailable. Additionally, an alternate method of NSCW cooling tower basin transfer will be implemented prior to the need for the transfer function during an accident when one or both NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. As a result, the proposed amendment does not alter assumptions relative to the mitigation of an accident or transient event.

    Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

    2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or difference accident from any accident previously evaluated?

    Response: No.

    With respect to a new or different kind of accident, there are o [no] proposed design changes to the NSCW system, cooling tower basin transfer system, or UHS; nor are there any changes in the method by which safety related plant structures, systems, and components perform their specified safety functions. The proposed amendment will not affect the normal method of plant operation or revise any operating parameters. No new accident scenarios, transient precursor, failure mechanisms, or limiting single failures will be introduced as a result of this proposed change.

    The proposed amendment does not alter the design or performance of the NSCW system, cooling towers, basin transfer system, or UHS. The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer pump is allowed to be inoperable ad provides remedial actions when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The compensatory measures when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable are consistent with the compensatory measures allowed when one NSCW basin transfer pump is inoperable.

    No changes are being proposed to the procedures that operate the plant equipment and the change does not have a detrimental impact on the manner in which plant equipment operates or response to an actuation signal.

    Therefore, the proposed change will not create the possibility of a new or different accident previously evaluated.

    3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety?

    Response: No.

    The margin of safety is related to the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment. The performance of these fission product barriers will not be affected by the proposed change.

    The proposed amendment extends the time one NSCW basin transfer pump is allowed to be inoperable and provides remedial action requirements when two NSCW basin transfer pumps are inoperable. The UHS will remain capable of responding to a design basis event during the extended time one inoperable NSCW basin transfer pump is unavailable and the brief period of time the NSCW basin transfer function is unavailable. An alternate method of NSCW cooling tower basin transfer will be implemented prior to the need for the transfer function during an accident. For these reasons, the NSCW system and the UHS will continue to be capable of transferring the combined heat load of structures, systems, and components important to safety under normal and accident conditions.

    Therefore, the margin to the onsite and offsite radiological dose limits are not impacted by the proposed amendment and, thus the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

    Attorney for licensee: Jennifer M. Buettner, Associate General Counsel, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, 40 Iverness Center Parkway, Birmingham, AL 35242.

    NRC Branch Chief: Michael T. Markley.

    III. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, was published in the Federal Register as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    DTE Electric Company, Docket No. 50-341, Fermi 2, Monroe County, Michigan

    Date of amendment request: February 23, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated March 30, 2017.

    Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised the Technical Specification requirements for the high pressure coolant injection system and reactor core isolation cooling system actuation instrumentation.

    Date of issuance: April 14, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 206. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17076A027; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-43: The amendment revised the Renewed Facility Operating License and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : March 13, 2017 (82 FR 13512). The supplemental letter dated March 30, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noted, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment and final no significant hazards determination is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 14, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-325 and 50-324, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Units 1 and 2, Brunswick County, North Carolina

    Date of amendment request: April 13, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated March 1, 2017.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the Allowable Values (AVs) of Surveillance Requirements (SRs) contained in Technical Specification 3.3.8.2, “RPS Electric Power Monitoring,” by amending the Reactor Protection System electric power monitoring assembly AVs for overvoltage and undervoltage contained within SRs 3.3.8.2.2 and 3.3.8.2.3

    Date of issuance: April 11, 2017.

    Effective date: As of date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: 273 and 301. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16343A246; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-71 and DPR-62: Amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : June 7, 2016 (81 FR 36613). The supplemental letter dated March 1, 2017, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 11, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, Docket Nos. 52-027 and 52-028, Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, South Carolina

    Date of amendment request: September 15, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments changed Combined License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3. The amendments changed the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific Design Control Document (DCD) Tier 2* information. Specifically, the changes revised the combined operating licenses and clarify information in WCAP-17179, “AP1000® Component Interface Module Technical Report,” which demonstrates design compliance with licensing bases requirements. The WCAP-17179 is incorporated by reference into the UFSAR to provide additional details regarding the component interface module (CIM) system design. The amendments also proposed a change to the CIM internal power supply that will enable proper functioning of the field programmable gate arrays.

    Date of issuance: April 12, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 30 days of issuance.

    Amendment No.: 71. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17040A184; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-93 and NPF-94: Amendments revised the UFSAR in the form of departures from the incorporated plant-specific DCD Tier 2* information.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : October 25, 2016 (81 FR 73437).

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 12, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    TEX Operations Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (CPNPP), Somervell County, Texas

    Date of amendment request: April 27, 2016, as supplemented by letter dated June 30, 2016.

    Brief description of amendments: The amendments revised the technical specifications (TSs) for CPNPP consistent with Technical Specifications Task Force (TSTF) Standard Technical Specifications Change Traveler TSTF-545, Revision 3, “TS Inservice Testing Program Removal & Clarify SR [Surveillance Requirement] Usage Rule Application to Section 5.5 Testing,” dated October 21, 2015. The changes include deleting the current TS requirements for the Inservice Testing Program, adding a new defined term, “INSERVICE TESTING PROGRAM,” to the TSs, and revising other TSs to reference this new defined term instead of the deleted program.

    Date of issuance: April 13, 2017.

    Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented within 120 days from the date of issuance.

    Amendment Nos.: Unit 1—168; Unit 2—168. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17074A494; documents related to these amendments are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendments.

    Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-87 and NPF-89: The amendments revised the Facility Operating Licenses and Technical Specifications.

    Date of initial notice in Federal Register : July 19, 2016 (81 FR 46963). The supplemental letter dated June 30, 2016, provided additional information that clarified the application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally noticed, and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards consideration determination as published in the Federal Register.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2017.

    No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.

    IV. Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards Consideration and Opportunity for a Hearing (Exigent Public Announcement or Emergency Circumstances)

    During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Act, and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.

    Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual notice of consideration of issuance of amendment, proposed no significant hazards consideration determination, and opportunity for a hearing.

    For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a Federal Register notice providing opportunity for public comment or has used local media to provide notice to the public in the area surrounding a licensee's facility of the licensee's application and of the Commission's proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. The Commission has provided a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment, using its best efforts to make available to the public means of communication for the public to respond quickly, and in the case of telephone comments, the comments have been recorded or transcribed as appropriate and the licensee has been informed of the public comments.

    In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.

    Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.

    The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.

    Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.

    For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License or Combined License, as applicable, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items can be accessed as described in the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any persons (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. The NRC's regulations are accessible electronically from the NRC Library on the NRC's Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. Alternatively, a copy of the regulations is available at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, Room O1-F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.

    As required by 10 CFR 2.309(d) the petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements for standing: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the petitioner; (2) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

    In accordance with 10 CFR 2.309(f), the petition must also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner must provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to the specific sources and documents on which the petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant or licensee on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions must be limited to matters within the scope of the proceeding. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to satisfy the requirements at 10 CFR 2.309(f) with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene. Parties have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing with respect to resolution of that party's admitted contentions, including the opportunity to present evidence, consistent with the NRC's regulations, policies, and procedures.

    Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii). The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document.

    If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.

    A State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(1). The petition should state the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest in the proceeding. The petition should be submitted to the Commission by July 10, 2017. The petition must be filed in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document, and should meet the requirements for petitions set forth in this section, except that under 10 CFR 2.309(h)(2) a State, local governmental body, or federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof does not need to address the standing requirements in 10 CFR 2.309(d) if the facility is located within its boundaries. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally-recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).

    If a hearing is granted, any person who is not a party to the proceeding and is not affiliated with or represented by a party may, at the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.315(a). A person making a limited appearance may make an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues but may not otherwise participate in the proceeding. A limited appearance may be made at any session of the hearing or at any prehearing conference, subject to the limits and conditions as may be imposed by the presiding officer. Details regarding the opportunity to make a limited appearance will be provided by the presiding officer if such sessions are scheduled.

    B. Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)

    All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including a request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition), any motion or other document filed in the proceeding prior to the submission of a request for hearing or petition to intervene, and documents filed by interested governmental entities that request to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with the NRC's E-Filing rule (72 FR 49139; August 28, 2007, as amended at 77 FR 46562, August 3, 2012). The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases to mail copies on electronic storage media. Detailed guidance on making electronic submissions may be found in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC and on the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html. Participants may not submit paper copies of their filings unless they seek an exemption in accordance with the procedures described below.

    To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-415-1677, to (1) request a digital identification (ID) certificate, which allows the participant (or its counsel or representative) to digitally sign submissions and access the E-Filing system for any proceeding in which it is participating; and (2) advise the Secretary that the participant will be submitting a petition or other adjudicatory document (even in instances in which the participant, or its counsel or representative, already holds an NRC-issued digital ID certificate). Based upon this information, the Secretary will establish an electronic docket for the hearing in this proceeding if the Secretary has not already established an electronic docket.

    Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals/getting-started.html. Once a participant has obtained a digital ID certificate and a docket has been created, the participant can then submit adjudicatory documents. Submissions must be in Portable Document Format (PDF). Additional guidance on PDF submissions is available on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/electronic-sub-ref-mat.html. A filing is considered complete at the time the document is submitted through the NRC's E-Filing system. To be timely, an electronic filing must be submitted to the E-Filing system no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the due date. Upon receipt of a transmission, the E-Filing system time-stamps the document and sends the submitter an email notice confirming receipt of the document. The E-Filing system also distributes an email notice that provides access to the document to the NRC's Office of the General Counsel and any others who have advised the Office of the Secretary that they wish to participate in the proceeding, so that the filer need not serve the document on those participants separately. Therefore, applicants and other participants (or their counsel or representative) must apply for and receive a digital ID certificate before adjudicatory documents are filed so that they can obtain access to the documents via the E-Filing system.

    A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/site-help/e-submittals.html, by email to [email protected], or by a toll-free call at 1-866-672-7640. The NRC Electronic Filing Help Desk is available between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding government holidays.

    Participants who believe that they have a good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; or (2) courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service to the Office of the Secretary, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving the document on all other participants. Filing is considered complete by first-class mail as of the time of deposit in the mail, or by courier, express mail, or expedited delivery service upon depositing the document with the provider of the service. A presiding officer, having granted an exemption request from using E-Filing, may require a participant or party to use E-Filing if the presiding officer subsequently determines that the reason for granting the exemption from use of E-Filing no longer exists.

    Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket which is available to the public at https://adams.nrc.gov/ehd, unless excluded pursuant to an order of the Commission or the presiding officer. If you do not have an NRC-issued digital ID certificate as described above, click cancel when the link requests certificates and you will be automatically directed to the NRC's electronic hearing dockets where you will be able to access any publicly available documents in a particular hearing docket. Participants are requested not to include personal privacy information, such as social security numbers, home addresses, or personal phone numbers in their filings, unless an NRC regulation or other law requires submission of such information. For example, in some instances, individuals provide home addresses in order to demonstrate proximity to a facility or site. With respect to copyrighted works, except for limited excerpts that serve the purpose of the adjudicatory filings and would constitute a Fair Use application, participants are requested not to include copyrighted materials in their submission.

    NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, Docket No. 50-443, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, Rockingham County, New Hampshire

    Date of amendment request: April 4, 2017, as supplemented by letter dated April 8, 2017.

    Description of amendment request: The amendment is a one-time change to the licensing basis for the service water cooling tower, which provides the standby seismically qualified ultimate heat sink for Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, to be removed from service for maintenance on the cooling tower basin with the reactor plant in operational Modes 5 or 6, cold shutdown or refueling, respectively, during the April 2017 refueling outage. During the maintenance period, the normal heat sink provided by the non-seismic tunnel access to the Atlantic Ocean would remain in service.

    Date of issuance: April 13, 2017.

    Effective date: This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance and shall be implemented immediately for the period that Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1, is in Modes 5 and 6 during the April 2017 refueling outage.

    Amendment No.: 155. A publicly-available version is in ADAMS under Accession No. ML17102A889; documents related to this amendment are listed in the Safety Evaluation enclosed with the amendment.

    Facility Operating License No. NPF-86: Amendment revised the Facility Operating License licensing basis.

    Public comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration (NSHC): Yes. The Portsmouth Herald and The Boston Globe on April 10, 2017, and April 11, 2017. The notice provided an opportunity to submit comments on the Commission's proposed NSHC determination. A public comment was received and addressed in the Safety Evaluation.

    The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of exigent circumstances, state consultation, and final NSHC determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 13, 2017.

    Attorney for licensee: William Blair, Managing Attorney—Nuclear Florida Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 14000, Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420.

    NRC Branch Chief: James G. Danna.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Kathryn M. Brock, Deputy Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09345 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2017-0104] Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Correction AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the Federal Register (FR) on April 25, 2017, regarding notice of issuance of amendments to facility operating licenses and combined licenses. This action is necessary to correct an administrative error.

    DATES:

    The correction is effective May 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0104 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2017-0104. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected]

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    V. Sreenivas, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2597, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the FR on April 25, 2017 (82 FR 19095), FR Doc. 2017-08115, on page 19108, under Exelon Generation Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-353, Limerick Generating Station, Unit 2, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, in the third column, paragraph 4, line 11, “Amendment No.: 186” is corrected to read “Amendment No.: 187.”

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    V. Sreenivas, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09367 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; NRC-2016-0092] STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRC's regulations. This EA summarizes the results of the NRC staff's environmental review, which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of granting exemptions from NRC regulations in response to a request from STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC, the licensee) for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, for South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Matagorda County, Texas. The regulatory exemptions, if granted, allow STPNOC to change the licensing basis loss-of-coolant accident analysis identified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to use a risk-informed approach to address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 and to close Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02.

    DATES:

    May 9, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0092 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0092. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] For the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided in a table in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.

    NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room 01-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Regner, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1906, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction and Background

    The NRC is considering a request to grant certain regulatory exemptions for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to STPNOC for operation of STP, Units 1 and 2, located in Matagorda County, Texas, in accordance with section 50.12, “Specific exemptions,” of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), “Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit.” The regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to resolve concerns associated with GSI-191, “Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump Performance,” and the associated GL 2004-02, “Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors,” issued on September 13, 2004.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, “Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,” the NRC has prepared an EA summarizing the findings of its NEPA review of the proposed action. The NRC concluded that the proposed action will have no significant environmental impact.

    The NRC published a draft EA on the proposed action for public comment in the Federal Register on May 4, 2016 (81 FR 26838) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16032A387). No comments were received.

    Background

    The NRC established GSI-191 to determine whether the transport and accumulation of debris from a loss-of-coolant accident in the PWR containment structure would impede the operation of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) or containment spray system (CSS). A loss-of-coolant accident within the containment structure is assumed to be caused by a break in the primary coolant loop piping. Water discharged from the pipe break would collect on the containment structure floor and within the containment emergency sump. During this type of accident, the ECCS and CSS would initially draw cooling water from the refueling water storage tank. However, realigning the ECCS pumps to the containment structure emergency sump would provide long-term cooling of the reactor core. Therefore, successful long-term cooling depends on the ability of the containment structure emergency sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal recirculation pumps for extended periods of time.

    One of the concerns addressed by the implementation of GSI-191 is that debris, such as insulation installed on piping and components, within the containment structure could be dislodged by a jet of water and steam from a loss-of-coolant accident. Water, along with debris, would accumulate at the bottom of the containment structure and flow towards the emergency sump pumps. Insulation and other fibrous material could block the emergency sump screens and suction strainers, which in turn could prevent the ability of the containment emergency sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal recirculation pumps (for more information, see NUREG-0897, “Containment Emergency Sump Performance”).

    The NRC issued GL 2004-02 to address this safety concern by requesting PWR licensees, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), to use an NRC-approved methodology to perform a “mechanistic evaluation of the potential for the adverse effects of post-accident debris blockage and operation with debris-laden fluids to impede or prevent the recirculation functions of the ECCS and CSS following all postulated accidents for which the recirculation of these systems is required” and submit this information to the NRC for evaluation.

    Subsequent to the issuance of GL 2004-02, the NRC staff identified another related concern with the potential for debris to bypass the sump strainers (even the new strainers) and enter the reactor core. This safety issue could result in the build-up of material on fuel assemblies and at the core inlet, inhibit heat transfer, and prevent adequate cooling of the reactor core. Since 2004, the NRC and industry have conducted tests to gain more information on this concern. In 2012, the NRC staff developed three options for resolution of GSI-191, which are discussed in SECY-12-0093, “Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue 191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance,” dated July 9, 2012.

    The three options for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, “Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,” and considering the impact of debris on ECCS and CSS recirculation, are summarized as follows.

    1. Option 1 allows the use of approved models and test methods.

    2. Option 2 allows the industry to implement additional mitigating measures until resolution is completed and take additional time to resolve issues through further industry testing or use of a risk-informed approach. Use of this option has two alternative methods, including Option 2B, chosen by STPNOC, which allows development of a risk-informed approach to quantify the risk associated with this generic issue and submit a request to the NRC for a license amendment.

    3. Option 3 allows the industry to separate the regulatory treatment of the sump strainer and in-vessel effects. The ECCS strainers will be evaluated using currently approved models, while in-vessel effects will be addressed using a risk-informed approach.

    The STPNOC proposed to use Option 2 to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, General Design Criterion (GDC) 35, “Emergency core cooling,” GDC 38, “Containment heat removal,” and GDC 41, “Containment atmosphere cleanup,” and to resolve GSI-191 for STP. The licensee proposed to use both a deterministic method, with plant-specific testing, and a risk-informed approach. Because, historically, the NRC staff has not allowed licensees to use a risk-informed approach to show compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and GDCs 35, 38, and 41, STPNOC requested exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) and the aforementioned GDCs, to allow the use of a risk-informed approach to resolve GSI-191. If approved, the proposed action would not authorize any modifications within the containment structure, physical changes to the ECCS, or other modifications to the plant. Rather, the proposed action would only allow the use of an alternate methodology to show compliance with the regulations that require ECCS and CSS function during certain loss-of-coolant accident events.

    II. Environmental Assessment Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to amend Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80 for STP, Units 1 and 2, and to grant regulatory exemptions requested by STPNOC. The regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to change the licensing basis loss-of-coolant accident analysis identified in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report to use a risk-informed approach to address safety issues discussed in GSI-191 and to close GL 2004-02. If approved, no physical modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to reactor operations involving the ECCS would be required. The proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated June 19, 2013, and supplemented by letters dated August 20, 2015, and April 13, 2016.

    Need for the Proposed Action

    As the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, STPNOC is expected to address the safety issues discussed in GSI-191 and to close GL 2004-02 with respect to STP, Units 1 and 2. Consistent with SECY-12-0093, STPNOC chose an approach to use a risk-informed methodology. Since the NRC staff's position has long held that only deterministic or bounding calculations be used to show compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, and GDCs 35, 38, and 41, the STPNOC has requested that the NRC grant certain regulatory exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2.

    Special Circumstances

    The NRC staff determined that special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.21 exist to prepare an EA for the proposed action because STP is the pilot plant to propose a risk-informed approach to resolve GSI-191 as recognized in Staff Requirement Memorandum SECY 12-0093, “Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue—191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance,” dated December 14, 2012. Because this is the first NRC review of the use of a risk-informed, instead of a deterministic, approach to determine that the ECCS and CSS structures, systems, and components will provide adequate cooling for the reactor core and containment during design-basis accidents in accordance with 10 CFR 50.46 and GDCs 35, 38, and 41, the NRC staff considered the issuance of an EA to be a prudent course of action that would further the purposes of NEPA.

    Plant Site and Environs

    The STP is located on approximately 12,220 acres (4,945 hectares) in rural and sparsely populated Matagorda County, Texas, approximately 70 miles (mi) [110 kilometers (km)] south-southwest of Houston. Nearby communities include Matagorda, approximately 8 mi (13 km) south of the site; the City of Palacios, 11 mi (18 km) west of the site; and Bay City, 13 mi (21 km) north of the site.

    The STP power plant consists of two four-loop Westinghouse PWR units. The reactor core of each unit heats water, which is pumped to four steam generators, where the heated water is converted to steam. The steam is then used to turn turbines, which are connected to electrical generators that produce electricity. A simplified drawing of a PWR can be viewed at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html.

    The reactor, steam generators, and other components are housed in a concrete and steel containment structure (building). The containment structure is a reinforced concrete cylinder with a concrete slab base and hemispherical dome. A welded steel liner is attached to the inside face of the concrete shell to ensure a high degree of leak tightness. In addition, the 4-foot (1.2-meter)-thick concrete walls of the containment structure serve as a radiation shield. Additional information on the plant structures and systems, as well as the environmental impact statement for license renewal, can be found in NUREG-1437, Supplement 48, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.”

    Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    Radiological and non-radiological impacts on the environment that may result from granting the regulatory exemptions are summarized in the following sections.

    Radiological Impacts Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste

    The STP uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety standards. Granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations that would affect the types and quantities of radioactive material generated during plant operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the plant radioactive waste treatment systems. A detailed description of the STP radioactive waste handling and disposal activities is contained in Chapter 2.1.2 of Supplement 48 to NUREG-1437.

    Radioactive Gaseous Effluents

    The objectives of the STP gaseous waste management system (GWMS) are to process and control the release of radioactive gaseous effluents into the environment to be within the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301, “Dose limits for individual members of the public,” and to be consistent with the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives set forth in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The GWMS is designed so that radiation exposure to plant workers is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201, “Occupational dose limits for adults.”

    Granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the GWMS. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

    Radioactive Liquid Effluents

    The function of the STP liquid waste processing system (LWPS) is to collect and process radioactive liquid wastes to reduce radioactivity and chemical concentrations to levels acceptable for discharge to the environment or to recycle the liquids for use in plant systems. The principal objectives of the LWPS are to collect liquid wastes that may contain radioactive material and to maintain sufficient processing capability so that liquid waste may be discharged to the environment below the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and consistent with the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The waste is routed through a monitor that measures the radioactivity and can automatically terminate the release in the event radioactivity exceeds predetermined levels. The liquid waste is discharged into the main cooling reservoir. The entire main cooling reservoir is within the STP site boundary and the public is prohibited from access to the area.

    Granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the LWPS. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

    Radioactive Solid Wastes

    The function of the STP solid waste processing system (SWPS) is to process, package, and store the solid radioactive wastes generated by nuclear plant operations until they are shipped off site to a vendor for further processing or for permanent disposal at a licensed burial facility, or both. The storage areas have restricted access and shielding to reduce radiation rates to plant workers. The principal objectives of the SWPS are to package and transport the waste in compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 61, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” and 10 CFR part 71, “Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material,” and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR parts 170 through 179; and to maintain the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR 20.1301, and appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

    Granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, the waste can be handled by the SWPS without modification. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive solid waste handling will continue to be used to maintain exposures within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR 20.1301, and 10 CFR part 50, appendix I.

    Occupational Radiation Doses

    The proposed action of granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes being made to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no change to any in-plant radiation sources. The licensee's radiation protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the nuclear plant to establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20, subpart C, “Occupational Dose Limits.” Granting the regulatory exemptions will not change radiation levels within the nuclear plant and, therefore, will have no increased radiological impact to the workers.

    Offsite Radiation Dose

    The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from the STP are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As discussed previously, there will be no change to the operation of the STP radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems or the ability to perform their intended functions. Also, there will be no change to the STP radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR 190, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,” and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

    Based on the previous statements, the offsite radiation dose to members of the public would not change and would continue to be within regulatory limits, and, therefore, granting the regulatory exemptions will not change offsite dose levels and, consequently, the health effects of the proposed action will not be significant.

    Design-Basis Accidents

    Design-basis accidents at STP, Units 1 and 2, are evaluated by both the licensee and the NRC to ensure that the units can withstand the spectrum of postulated accidents without undue hazard to the public health and safety and the protection of the environment.

    Separate from its environmental review in this EA, the NRC staff is evaluating the licensee's technical and safety analyses provided in support of the proposed action of granting the exemption requests to ensure that, following the proposed action, the licensee will continue to meet the NRC regulatory requirements for safe operation. The results and conclusion of the NRC staff's safety review will be documented in a publicly available safety evaluation. If the NRC staff concludes in this safety evaluation that taking the proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, then the proposed action will also not have a significant environmental impact. The NRC will not take the proposed action absent such a safety conclusion.

    Radiological Cumulative Impacts

    The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and plant workers have been developed by the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and 40 CFR part 190.

    Cumulative radiation doses are required to be within the limits set forth in the regulations cited in the previous paragraph. Granting the exemptions will not require any physical changes to the plant or plant activities, there will not be changes to in-plant radiation sources, and offsite radiation dose to members of the public will not change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative radiological impact from the proposed action.

    Radiological Impacts Summary

    Based on these radiological evaluations, the proposed action of granting the exemptions would not result in any significant radiological impacts. Therefore, if the NRC staff concludes in its separate safety evaluation that taking the proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, then the proposed action will not have a significant radiological impact.

    Non-Radiological Impacts

    No physical modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to reactor operations involving the ECCS would be required if the NRC were to grant the regulatory exemptions. Also, no physical changes would be made to other structures or land use within the STP site. Non-radiological liquid effluents or gaseous emissions would not change and therefore environmental conditions at the STP site also would not change. In addition, granting the regulatory exemptions would not result in changes to the use of resources (e.g., visual, terrestrial, or aquatic) or cause any new environmental impacts (e.g., noise). Further, granting the regulatory exemptions does not change the operation of the reactor, the heat load dissipated to the environment, or the amount of non-radiological waste.

    Therefore, there would be no non-radiological environmental impacts to any resource or any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.

    Non-Radiological Cumulative Impacts

    Since granting the regulatory exemptions would not result in environmental effects, there would be no cumulative impact.

    Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As discussed earlier, licensees have options in responding to GL 2004-02 and demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 considering the impacts of debris on the emergency core cooling system. Consistent with these options and as an alternative to the proposed action, the licensee could choose to not pursue exemptions (Options 1 and 3). Depending on the results of its analysis, the licensee would instead remove fibrous insulation to reduce the debris loading and the potential for clogging the containment sumps, and would replace insulation within the reactor containment building. This alternative would involve the physical removal and disposal of significant amounts of insulation from a radiation area within the reactor containment building and replacement with insulation less likely to impact sump performance. This would be considered the “no action alternative” in that it would not require exemptions (actions) from the NRC.

    Removal of the existing insulation from the containment building would generate radiologically contaminated waste. The STPNOC estimated that 4,620 cubic feet of insulation would be removed and stored onsite until disposal. The old insulation would require special handling and packaging so that it could be safely transported from the STP site. The licensee's existing low-level radioactive and hazardous waste handling and disposal activities would likely be used to process and store this waste material. The old insulation would then be transported to a low-level radioactive or hazardous waste disposal site. Energy (fuel) would be expended to transport the insulation and land would be expended at the disposal site.

    The removal of the old insulation and installation of the new insulation would expose workers to radiation. In its application, STPNOC estimates that this would result in an additional collective radiation exposure of 158-176 person-roentgen equivalent man (rem) over its baseline collective radiation exposure. The NRC staff reviewed NUREG-0713, Volume 34, “Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2012: Forty-Fifth Annual Report,” and determined that STPNOC's average baseline collective radiation exposure is approximately 90 person-rem. This additional 158-176 person-rem collective exposure would be shared across the entire work force involved with removing and reinstalling insulation.

    In SECY-12-0093, the NRC staff attempted to develop a total occupational dose estimate for the work involved in insulation removal and replacement associated with GSI-191. Due to uncertainties in the scope of work required to remove and replace insulation at a specific nuclear plant and other site-specific factors such as source term and hazardous materials, the NRC staff was unable to estimate the total occupational dose associated with this work. However, dose estimates were provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a letter to the NRC dated March 30, 2012, based on information collected on occupational radiation exposures that have been, or could be, incurred during insulation removal and replacement. In the letter, NEI noted similar difficulties to those experienced by the NRC staff in estimating the potential amount of radiation exposure, but provided a “per unit” estimate of between 80 to 525 person-rem. The NRC staff ultimately concluded that the NEI estimates were reasonable given the uncertainties in the scope of work and other nuclear plant site-specific factors such as source term and hazardous materials. Therefore, since STPNOC's estimate of radiation exposure for insulation removal and replacement is within the NEI estimated range, the NRC staff considers STPNOC's estimate of an increase of 158-176 person-rem over the baseline exposure to be reasonable.

    As stated in the “Occupational Radiation Doses” section of this document, STPNOC's radiation protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the nuclear plant to establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so that worker doses are expected to remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201.

    In addition, as stated in the “Offsite Radiation Dose” section of this document, STPNOC also has a radiation monitoring system and procedures in place to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, radiation exposure to members of the public would not be significant and would be maintained within the NRC dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives of appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

    Based on this information, impacts to members of the public from removing and replacing insulation within the reactor containment building would not be significant. However, impacts to plant workers and the environment from implementing this alternative would be greater than implementing the proposed action.

    Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action would not involve the use of any different resources (e.g., water, air, land, nuclear fuel) not previously considered in NUREG-1437, Supplement 48.

    Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on May 1, 2017, the NRC staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Robert Free, regarding the final environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official had no comments on the final EA and finding of no significant impact.

    III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    The NRC is considering STPNOC's requests to amend Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80 for STP, Units 1 and 2, and to grant exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2, from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDCs 35, 38, and 41.

    This proposed action would not result in changes to radioactive effluents or emissions to nuclear plant workers and members of the public or any changes to radiological and non-radiological impacts to the environment. On the basis of the EA included in Section II of this notice and incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC staff finds that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff's evaluation considered the information provided in the licensee's application as supplement, and the NRC staff's review of related environmental documents. Section IV below lists the environmental documents related to the proposed action and includes information on the availability of the documents. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

    IV. Availability of Documents

    The documents identified in the following table are available for public inspection through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) or by using one of the methods discussed in Section I.A, “Obtaining Information,” of this document.

    Title Date ADAMS
  • Accession No.
  • NUREG-0897, Containment Emergency Sump Performance: Technical Findings Related to Unresolved Safety Issue A-43, Revision 1 10/1985 ML112440046 NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors 9/13/2004 ML042360586 NEI letter to NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute, GSI-191 Dose Estimates 03/30/2012 ML12095A319 Commission SECY-12-0093, Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue-191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance 07/09/2012 ML121320270
  • (package)
  • Commission SRM-SECY-12-0093, Staff Requirements—SECY-12-0093—Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue-191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance 12/14/2012 ML12349A378 STPNOC letter to NRC, STP Pilot Submittal and Request for Exemption for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 01/31/2013 ML13043A013 NRC letter to STPNOC, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2—Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Request for Exemption for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue 191 04/01/2013 ML13066A519 STPNOC letter to NRC, Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 06/19/2013 ML131750250
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Corrections to Information Provided in Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 10/03/2013 ML13295A222 STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of GSI-191 Chemical Effects Test Reports 10/31/2013 ML13323A673
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 11/13/2013 ML13323A128
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 to Supersede and Replace the Revised Pilot Submittal 11/21/2013 ML13338A165 NUREG-1437, Supplement 48, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2: Final Report 11/2013 ML13322A890 STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to STP-GSI-191 EMCB-RAI-1 12/23/2013 ML14015A312 STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to NRC Request for Reference Document For STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Application 12/23/2013 ML14015A311 STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information 03/17/2014 ML14086A383
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to Request for Additional Information re Use of RELAP5 in Analyses for Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 01/09/2014 ML14029A533 STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of CASA Grande Code and Analyses for STP's Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 02/13/2014 ML14052A110 (package, portions redacted) STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of GSI-191 Chemical Effects Test Reports 02/27/2014 ML14072A075
  • (package)
  • NRC Letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 1 04/15/2014 ML14087A075 NUREG-0713, Volume 34, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2012: Forty-Fifth Annual Report 04/2014 ML14126A597 STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Submittal of CASA Grande Source Code for STP's Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 05/15/2014 ML14149A354 STPNOC letter to NRC, First Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSl-191 Licensing Application—Revised 05/22/2014 ML14149A439
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 06/25/2014 ML14178A467
  • (package)
  • STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 07/15/2014 ML14202A045 NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 2 03/03/2015 ML14357A171 STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of Updated CASA Grande Input for STP's Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 03/10/2015 ML15072A092 STPNOC letter to NRC, Description of Revised Risk-Informed Methodology and Responses to Round 2 Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 03/25/2015 ML15091A440 STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 2 to STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Address Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191 and Respond to Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02 08/20/2015 ML15246A125
  • (package)
  • NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 3 (without Risk) 04/11/2016 ML16082A507 NRC letter to STPNOC, Request of Additional Information, Round 3 (Risk) 05/26/2016 ML16125A290 STPNOC letter to NRC, First Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSl-191 Licensing Application 05/11/2016 ML16154A117 STPNOC letter to NRC, Applicability of Application Supplement 1 Correspondence to Supplement 2 Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 06/09/2016 ML16176A148 STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 06/16/2016 ML16196A241 STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application—Part A 07/18/2016 ML16209A226 STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application—Part B 07/21/2016 ML16229A189 STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application—Part C 07/21/2016 ML16230A232 STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application—Part D 07/28/2016 ML16221A393 STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April 11, 2016, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application—Part E 09/12/2016 ML16272A162 STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 3 to Revised Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Address Generic Safety Issue (GSl)-191 and Respond to Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02 10/20/2016 ML16302A015 STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Sensitivity Studies for STPNOC Risk-Informed Pilot GSl-191 Application 11/9/2016 ML16321A407 STPNOC letter to NRC, Revised Applicability Matrix for Response to Request for Additional Information Questions APLA-1a and APLA-1b Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSl-191 Licensing Application 12/7/2016 ML16365A006 STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to Request for Additional Information on Revised Applicability Matrix for Questions Regarding Risk-Informed GSI-191 Licensing Application 01/19/2017 ML17025A123
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May, 2017.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Robert J. Pascarelli, Chief, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09369 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80584; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-44] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF; IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF; and IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 May 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 2 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,3 notice is hereby given that, on April 20, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Exchange” or “NYSE Arca”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).

    2 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 list and trade shares of the IQ Municipal Insured ETF; IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF; and IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF (each a “Fund” and, collectively, the “Funds”) under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (“Managed Fund Shares”). 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 list and trade shares (“Shares”) of each Fund under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600,4 which governs the listing and trading of Managed Fund Shares.5 The Shares will be offered by the IndexIQ Active ETF Trust (the “Trust”), which is registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment company.6 Each Fund is a series of the Trust.

    4 The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has approved for Exchange listing and trading shares of actively managed funds of the [sic] that principally hold municipal bonds. See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 60981 (November 10, 2009), 74 FR 59594 (November 18, 2009) (SR-NYSEArca-2009-79) (order approving listing and trading of shares of the PIMCO Short-Term Municipal Bond Strategy Fund and PIMCO Intermediate Municipal Bond Strategy Fund); 79293 (November 10, 2016), 81 FR 81189 (November 17, 2016) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-107) (order approving listing and trading of shares of Cumberland Municipal Bond ETF under Rule 8.600). The Commission also has approved listing and trading on the Exchange of shares of the SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond Fund under Commentary .02 of NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63881 (February 9, 2011), 76 FR 9065 (February 16, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-120).

    5 A Managed Fund 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), 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.

    6 The Trust is registered under the 1940 Act. On February 24, 2017, the Trust filed with the Commission its registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a) (“Securities Act”), and under the 1940 Act relating to the Funds (File Nos. 333-183489 and 811-22739) (“Registration Statement”). The description of the operation of the Trust and the Funds herein is based, in part, on the Registration Statement. In addition, the Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No. 30198 (September 10, 2012) (File No. 812-13956) (“Exemptive Order”).

    The investment adviser to each Fund will be IndexIQ Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). MacKay Shields LLC will be each Fund's sub-adviser (Subadviser). ALPS Distributors, Inc. Inc. [sic] will serve as the distributor (the “Distributor”) of each Fund's Shares on an agency basis. The Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY Mellon”) will serve as each Fund's Administrator, Custodian, Transfer Agent and Securities Lending Agent.

    Commentary .06 to Rule 8.600 provides that, if the investment adviser to the investment company issuing Managed Fund Shares is affiliated with a broker-dealer, such investment adviser shall erect a “fire wall” between the investment adviser and the broker-dealer with respect to access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to such investment company portfolio.7 In addition, Commentary .06 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. The Adviser or Subadviser is not a registered broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer. The Adviser and Subadviser have implemented a “fire wall” with respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition of and/or changes to each Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the Adviser or Subadviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or sub-adviser to a Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes affiliated with a broker-dealer, the applicable adviser or sub-adviser will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to a Fund's portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding such portfolio.

    7 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 Subadviser and their related personnel are 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 violation, 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.

    IQ Municipal Insured ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek current income exempt from federal income tax. The Fund, under normal market conditions,8 will invest at least 80% of its assets in municipal bonds (“Municipal Bonds”, as described below) that are covered by insurance policies that guarantee the timely payment of principal and interest. The Fund generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average duration within plus or minus two years of the dollar-weighted average duration of the S&P Municipal Bond Insured Index.9

    8 The term “under normal market conditions” as used herein includes, but is not limited to, the absence of adverse market, economic, political or other conditions, including extreme volatility or trading halts in the fixed income markets or the financial markets generally; operational issues (e.g., systems failure) causing dissemination of inaccurate market information; or force majeure type events such as natural or man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism, riot or labor disruption or any similar intervening circumstance. On a temporary basis, including for defensive purposes, during the initial invest-up period (i.e., the six-week period following the commencement of trading of Shares on the Exchange) and during periods of high cash inflows or outflows (i.e., rolling periods of seven calendar days during which inflows or outflows of cash, in the aggregate, exceed 10% of a Fund's net assets as of the opening of business on the first day of such periods), a Fund may depart from its principal investment strategies; for example, it may hold a higher than normal proportion of its assets in cash. During such periods, a Fund may not be able to achieve its investment objectives. A Fund may adopt a defensive strategy when the Adviser believes securities in which a Fund normally invests have elevated risks due to political or economic factors and in other extraordinary circumstances.

    9 Municipal bonds are issued by or on behalf of the District of Columbia, states, territories, commonwealths and possessions of the United States and their political subdivisions and agencies, authorities and instrumentalities. Municipal securities, which may be issued in various forms, including bonds and notes, are issued to obtain funds for various public purposes.

    For [sic] Fund, as well as the IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF and IQ Intermediate ETF which are discussed below, the Subadviser's investment process will begin with an assessment of macro factors that may impact the municipal bond market, as well as other regulatory, tax, governmental, and technical factors that may impact the municipal bond market. Following the assessment of these factors, the Subadviser will develop an investment strategy to position a Fund among various sectors of the municipal bond market and different states. The Subadviser then will employ a fundamental, “bottom-up” credit research analysis to select individual Municipal Bonds.

    Municipal Bonds

    For purposes of this filing, the term “Municipal Bonds” as applied to each of the Funds includes the following:

    • Municipal lease obligations (and certificates of participation in such obligations);

    • municipal general obligation bonds (including industrial development bonds issued pursuant to federal tax law), which are issued for either project or enterprise financings in which the bond issuer pledges to the bondholders the revenues generated by the operating projects financed from the proceeds of the bond issuance;

    • limited obligation bonds, which are payable only from the revenues derived from a particular facility or class of facilities or, in some cases from the proceeds of a special excise or other specific revenue source;

    • municipal revenue bonds (which are typically secured by revenues generated by the issuer), including revenue anticipation notes;

    • municipal bond anticipation notes (which are normally issued to provide interim financial assistance until long-term financing can be arranged);

    • Municipal Bonds that feature credit enhancements, such as lines of credit, letters of credit, municipal bond insurance, and standby bond purchase agreements;

    • discount bonds (which may be originally issued at a discount to par value or sold at market price below par value);

    • premium bonds, which are sold at a premium to par value;

    • zero coupon bonds, which are issued at an original issue discount, with the full value, including accrued interest, paid at maturity;

    • taxable municipal bonds, including Build America Bonds;

    • municipal notes;

    • municipal cash equivalents;

    • private activity bonds (including without limitation industrial development bonds);

    • pre-refunded and escrowed to maturity bonds; and

    • securities issued by entities whose underlying assets are Municipal Bonds (i.e., tender option bond (TOB) trusts and custodial receipts trusts and variable rate demand notes (VRDNs) that pay interest monthly or quarterly based on a floating rate that is reset daily or weekly based on an index of short-term municipal rates).

    The Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in Municipal Bonds that are related in such a way that an economic, business or political development or change affecting one such security could also affect the other securities. However, the Fund's investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the Municipal Bond market. The Fund's investments in Municipal Bonds will include investments in state and local (e.g., county, city, town) and authority-issued Municipal Bonds relating to such sectors as the following: State general obligation; local general obligation; education; hospital; housing; industrial development revenue (IDR)/pollution control revenue (PCR); power; resource recovery; transportation; water/sewer; leasing; special tax; and pre-refunded bonds. The Fund's investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of the Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Under normal market conditions, no security (excluding Treasury securities) will represent more than 25% of the weight of the portfolio, and the five highest weighed securities will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 50% of the weight of the Fund. No Municipal Bond held by the Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers.10

    10 For purposes of this restriction, each state and each separate political subdivision, agency, authority, or instrumentality of such state, each multi-state agency or authority, and each guarantor, if any, will be treated as separate issuers of Municipal Bonds.

    Other Investments

    With respect to each of the Funds, while a Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in Municipal Bonds, as described above, a Fund may invest its remaining assets in other assets and financial instruments, as described below.

    A Fund may invest in shares of exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) and money market funds,11 and may invest directly and indirectly in: Fixed rate and floating rate 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 (“U.S. Government Securities”); repurchase agreements; commercial paper; and may purchase securities on a when-issued basis or for settlement at a future date (forward commitment), if a Fund holds sufficient liquid assets to meet the purchase price (collectively, “Other Investments”).

    11 For purposes of this filing, ETFs include Investment Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.2(j)(3)); Portfolio Depositary 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 all will be listed and traded in the U.S. on registered exchanges.

    IQ Municipal Short Duration ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek current income exempt from federal income tax. The Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in Municipal Bonds. The Fund generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average portfolio duration of three years or less.

    The Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in Municipal Bonds that are related in such a way that an economic, business or political development or change affecting one such security could also affect the other securities. However, the Fund's investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the municipal bond market. The Fund's investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of the Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Under normal market conditions, no security (excluding Treasury securities) will represent more than 25% of the weight of the portfolio, and the five highest weighed securities will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 50% of the weight of the Fund. No Municipal Bond held by the Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers.

    While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in Municipal Bonds, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in Other Investments.

    IQ Municipal Intermediate ETF

    According to the Registration Statement, the Fund will seek current income exempt from federal income tax. The Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in Municipal Bonds. The Fund generally will maintain a dollar-weighted average duration within plus or minus two years of the dollar-weighted average duration of the S&P Municipal Bond Intermediate Index.

    The Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in Municipal Bonds that are related in such a way that an economic, business or political development or change affecting one such security could also affect the other securities. However, the Fund's investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the municipal bond market. The Fund's investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of the Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Under normal market conditions, no security (excluding Treasury securities) will represent more than 25% of the weight of the portfolio, and the five highest weighed securities will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 50% of the weight of the Fund. No Municipal Bond held by the Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers.

    While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest at least 80% of its assets in Municipal Bonds, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in Other Investments.

    Determination of Net Asset Value (“NAV”)

    According to the Registration Statement, the NAV of the Shares for a Fund will be equal to a Fund's total assets minus the Fund's total liabilities divided by the total number of Shares outstanding. Interest and investment income on the Trust's assets accrue daily and are included in a Fund's total assets. Expenses and fees (including investment advisory, management, administration and distribution fees, if any) accrue daily and are included in the Fund's total liabilities. The NAV is calculated by the Administrator and Custodian and determined each business day as of the close of the NYSE Arca Core Trading Session (ordinarily 4:00 p.m. Eastern time).

    A Fund typically will value fixed-income portfolio securities, including Municipal Bonds, using last available bid prices or current market quotations provided by dealers or prices (including evaluated prices) supplied by a Fund's approved independent third-party pricing services. Pricing services may use matrix pricing or valuation models that utilize certain inputs and assumptions to derive values. An amortized cost method of valuation may be used with respect to debt obligations with sixty days or less remaining to maturity unless the Adviser determines in good faith that such method does not represent fair value.

    Generally, trading in U.S. Government Securities, money market funds, and certain fixed-income securities is substantially completed each day at various times prior to the close of business on the NYSE. The values of such securities used in computing the NAV of the Fund will be determined as of such times.

    The value of any ETFs held by the Fund is based on such securities' closing price on local markets, when available. The value of a money market fund held by a Fund will be based on the NAV of the money market fund.

    When market quotations or prices are not readily available or are deemed unreliable or not representative of an investment's fair value, investments are 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.

    Indicative Intra-Day Value

    The approximate value of each Fund's investments on a per-Share basis, the Indicative Intra-Day Value (“IIV”) will be disseminated by the Exchange or one or more major market data vendors every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Core Trading Session (ordinarily 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The IIV should not be viewed as a “real-time” update of NAV because the IIV may not be calculated in the same manner as NAV, which is computed once per day.

    An independent third party calculator will calculate the IIV for each Fund during the Exchange's Core Trading Session by dividing the “Estimated Fund Value” as of the time of the calculation by the total number of outstanding Shares of that Fund. “Estimated Fund Value” is the sum of the estimated amount of cash held in a Fund's portfolio, the estimated amount of accrued interest owed to the Fund and the estimated value of the securities held in the Fund's portfolio, minus the estimated amount of the Fund's liabilities. The IIV will be calculated based on the same portfolio holdings disclosed on the Trust's Web site.

    Purchase and Redemption of Creation Units Creation of Shares

    According to the Registration Statement, the Trust will issue and sell Shares of a Fund only in Creation Units of at least 50,000 Shares on a continuous basis through the Distributor, at their NAV next determined after receipt, on any business day (that is, any day on which the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) is open for business.), for an order received in proper form.

    The consideration for purchase of a Creation Unit of a Fund generally will consist of an in-kind deposit of a designated portfolio of securities—the Deposit Securities—per each Creation Unit constituting a substantial replication, or a representation, of the securities included in a Fund's portfolio and an amount of cash—the “Cash Component.” Together, the Deposit Securities and the Cash Component constitute the “Fund Deposit,” which represents the minimum initial and subsequent investment amount for a Creation Unit of a Fund. The Cash Component is an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares (per Creation Unit) and the market value of the Deposit Securities.

    The Administrator, through the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”), will make available on each business day, immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time), the list of the names and the required number of shares of each Deposit Security to be included in the current Fund Deposit (based on information at the end of the previous business day) for a Fund.

    In addition to the list of names and numbers of securities constituting the current Deposit Securities of a Fund Deposit, the Administrator, through the NSCC, also will make available on each business day, the estimated Cash Component, effective through and including the previous business day, per outstanding Creation Unit of a Fund.

    To be eligible to place orders to create a Creation Unit of a Fund, an entity must be (i) a “Participating Party”, i.e., a broker-dealer or other participant in the clearing process through the Continuous Net Settlement System of the NSCC (the “Clearing Process”), a clearing agency that is registered with the Commission; or (ii) a DTC Participant, and, in each case, must have executed an agreement (“Participant Agreement”) with the Trust, the Distributor and the Administrator with respect to creations and redemptions of Creation Units. A Participating Party and DTC Participant are collectively referred to as an “Authorized Participant.”

    All orders to create Creation Units must be placed for one or more Creation Unit size aggregations of at least 50,000 Shares. All orders to create Creation Units, whether through the Clearing Process (through a Participating Party) or outside the Clearing Process (through a DTC Participant), must be received by the Distributor no later than 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, in each case on the date such order is placed in order for the creation of Creation Units to be effected based on the NAV of Shares of a Fund as next determined on such date after receipt of the order in proper form.

    Redemption of Shares

    Shares may be redeemed only in Creation Units at their NAV next determined after receipt of a redemption request in proper form by the Distributor and the Fund through the Administrator and only on a business day. Orders to redeem Creation Units must be received by the Administrator not later than 3:00 Eastern Time.

    With respect to each Fund, the Administrator, through the NSCC, will make available immediately prior to the opening of business on the Exchange (currently 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time) on each business day, the designated portfolio of securities (“Fund Securities”) per each Creation Unit that will be applicable (subject to possible amendment or correction) to redemption requests received in proper form (as defined below) on that day. Fund Securities received on redemption may not be identical to Deposit Securities which are applicable to creations of Creation Units.

    Unless cash redemptions are available or specified for a Fund, the redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit generally will consist of Fund Securities—as announced by the Administrator on the business day of the request for redemption received in proper form—plus cash in an amount equal to the difference between the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after a receipt of a request in proper form, and the value of the Fund Securities (the “Cash Redemption Amount”), less a redemption transaction fee. In the event that the Fund Securities have a value greater than the NAV of the Shares, a compensating cash payment equal to the differential is required to be made by or through an Authorized Participant by the redeeming shareholder.

    The redemption proceeds for a Creation Unit of a Fund will consist solely of cash in an amount equal to the NAV of the Shares being redeemed, as next determined after receipt of a request in proper form less a redemption transaction fee.

    If it is not possible to effect deliveries of the Fund Securities, the Trust may in its discretion exercise its option to redeem such Shares in cash, and the redeeming Beneficial Owner will be required to receive its redemption proceeds in cash. In addition, an investor may request a redemption in cash which a Fund may, in its sole discretion, permit. In either case, the investor will receive a cash payment equal to the NAV of its Shares based on the NAV of Shares of a Fund next determined after the redemption request is received in proper form. A Fund may also, in its sole discretion, upon request of a shareholder, provide such redeemer a portfolio of securities which differs from the exact composition of a Fund Securities but does not differ in NAV.

    Availability of Information

    Each Fund will disclose on the Funds' Web site (www.iqetfs.com) at the start of each business day the identities and quantities of the securities and other assets held by each Fund that will form the basis of the Fund's calculation of its net asset value (“NAV”) on that business day. The portfolio holdings so disclosed will be based on information as of the close of business on the prior business day and/or trades that have been completed prior to the opening of business on that business day and that are expected to settle on the business day. Online disclosure of such holdings is publicly available at no charge.

    The Web site for the Funds will contain the following information, on a per-Share basis, for each Fund: (1) The prior business day's NAV; (2) the reported midpoint of the bid-ask spread at the time of NAV calculation (the “Bid-Ask Price”); (3) a calculation of the premium or discount of the Bid-Ask Price against such NAV; and (4) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the Bid-Ask Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters (or for the life of a Fund if, shorter). In addition, on each business day, before the commencement of trading in Shares on the NYSE Arca, each Fund will disclose on its Web site the identities and quantities of the portfolio securities and other assets held by each Fund that will form the basis for the calculation of NAV at the end of the business day.

    On a daily basis, the Funds will disclose the information required under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 (c)(2) to the extent applicable.

    Each Fund's portfolio holdings will be disclosed on the Funds' Web site daily after the close of trading on the Exchange and prior to the opening of trading on the Exchange the following day.

    Information regarding the extent and frequency with which market prices of Shares have tracked the relevant Fund's NAV for the most recently completed calendar year and the quarters since that year will be available without charge on the Funds' Web site.

    The approximate value of a Fund's investments on a per-Share basis, the IIV, will be disseminated every 15 seconds during the Exchange Core Trading Session (ordinarily 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time).

    Investors can also obtain each Fund's Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), shareholder reports, Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR, filed twice a year. The Funds' SAI and shareholder reports will be available free upon request from the Trust, and those documents and the Form N-CSR and Form N-SAR 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 publicly available.

    Quotation and last sale information for the Shares and will be available via the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) high-speed line, and from the national securities exchange [sic] on which they are listed.

    Quotation information from brokers and dealers or pricing services will be available for Municipal Bonds and Other Investments. Price information for money market funds will be available from the applicable investment company's Web site and from market data vendors. Pricing information regarding Municipal Bonds and Other Investments will generally be available through nationally recognized data service providers through subscription agreements. In addition, the IIV (which is the Portfolio Indicative Value, as defined in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(c)(3)), will be widely disseminated at least every 15 seconds during the Core Trading Session by one or more major market data vendors or other information providers.12

    12 Currently, it is the Exchange's understanding that several major market data vendors display and/or make widely available IIVs taken from CTA or other data feeds.

    Investment Restrictions

    Each Fund may hold up to an aggregate amount of 15% of its net assets in illiquid assets (calculated at the time of investment) deemed illiquid by the Adviser, 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 held 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.13

    13 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).

    Each Fund's investments will be consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.

    Each Fund may invest more than 25% of its total assets in municipal bonds that are related in such a way that an economic, business or political development or change affecting one such security could also affect the other securities. However, a Fund's investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the municipal bond market. A Fund's investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of a Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Under normal market conditions, no security (excluding Treasury securities) will represent more than 25% of the weight of the portfolio, and the five highest weighed securities will not, in the aggregate, account for more than 50% of the weight of the Fund. No Municipal Bond held by the Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio. The Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers.

    Application of Generic Listing Requirements

    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the portfolios for the Funds will not meet all of the “generic” listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 applicable to the listing of Managed Fund Shares. Each Fund's portfolio will meet all such requirements except for those set forth in Commentary .01(b)(1).14

    14 Commentary .01(b)(1) to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 provides that components that in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of the portfolio each shall have a minimum original principal amount outstanding of $100 million or more.

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Funds on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Funds would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600 in that the Funds' investments in municipal securities will be well-diversified.

    The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of a Fund's portfolio may consist of components with less than $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Funds with greater ability to select from a broad range of Municipal Bonds, as described above, that would support a Fund's investment goal.

    The Exchange believes that, notwithstanding that each Fund's portfolio may not satisfy Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600, the Funds' portfolios will not be susceptible to manipulation. As noted above, the Funds' investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the municipal bond market. The Funds' investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of a Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Additionally, no Municipal Bond held by a Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of a Fund's portfolio. A Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers. The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600, each Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600.

    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 a Fund.15 Trading in Shares of a Fund 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.

    15See 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 from 4 a.m. to 8 p.m., Eastern Time in accordance with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.34 (Early, Core, and Late Trading Sessions). The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.6, the minimum price variation (“MPV”) for quoting and entry of orders in equity securities traded on the NYSE Arca Marketplace is $0.01, with the exception of securities that are priced less than $1.00 for which the MPV for order entry is $0.0001.

    The Shares of each Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. Consistent with NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Adviser will implement and maintain, or be subject to, procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of material non-public information regarding the actual components of a Fund's portfolio. The Exchange represents that, for initial and/or continued listing, a Fund will be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 16 under the Act, as provided by NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.3. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation from the issuer of the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. Each Fund's investments will be consistent with a Fund's investment goal and will not be used to enhance leverage.

    16 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 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) on behalf of the Exchange, or by regulatory staff of the Exchange, which are designed to detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. 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.17

    17 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.18

    18 For a list of the current members of ISG, see www.isgportal.org. The Exchange notes that not all components of the Disclosed Portfolio may trade on markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.

    The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares 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 in the Shares and ETFs from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares 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. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by a Fund reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”). FINRA also can access data obtained from the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares.

    In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.

    All statements and representations made in this filing regarding (a) the description of the portfolio, (b) limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, or (c) or (c) [sic] the applicability of Exchange listing rules specified in this rule filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for listing the Shares of a Fund on the Exchange.

    The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by a Fund to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will monitor for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If a Fund is not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 5.5(m).

    Information Bulletin

    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit 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 in Creation Unit aggregations (and that Shares are not individually redeemable); (2) NYSE Arca Equities Rule 9.2(a), which imposes a duty of due diligence on its Equity Trading Permit Holders to learn the essential facts relating to every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) the risks involved in trading the Shares during the Opening and Late Trading Sessions when an updated IIV will not be calculated or publicly disseminated; (4) how information regarding the IIV and the Disclosed Portfolio is disseminated; (5) the requirement that Equity Trading Permit 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 each Fund is 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., Eastern Time each trading day.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) 19 that an exchange have rules that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

    19 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed and traded on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600. The Exchange has in place surveillance procedures that are adequate to properly monitor trading in the Shares in all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and applicable federal securities laws. The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares with other markets 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 in the Shares from such markets and other entities. In addition, the Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares from markets and other entities that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement. In addition, FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, is able to access, as needed, trade information for certain fixed income securities held by a Fund reported to TRACE. FINRA also can access data obtained from the MSRB relating to municipal bond trading activity for surveillance purposes in connection with trading in the Shares. Each Fund may not purchase illiquid assets if, in the aggregate, more than 15% of its net assets would be invested in illiquid assets. The Adviser is not registered as a broker-dealer but is affiliated with a broker-dealer and will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to each of its relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to information concerning the composition and/or changes to the portfolios.

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate and in the public interest to approve listing and trading of Shares of the Funds on the Exchange notwithstanding that the Funds would not meet the requirements of Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600 in that the Funds' investments in municipal securities will be well-diversified. As noted above, the Funds' investments will be diversified among a minimum of ten different sectors of the municipal bond market. The Funds' investments will be diversified among at least 15 different states, with no more than 30% of a Fund's securities invested in municipal securities from a single state. Additionally, no Municipal Bond held by a Fund will exceed 5% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio and no single Municipal Bond issuer will account for more than 8% of the weight of a Fund's portfolio. A Fund will hold Municipal Bonds of a minimum of 25 non-affiliated issuers. The Exchange notes that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1) to Rule 8.600, each Fund's portfolio will meet all other requirements of Rule 8.600.

    The Exchange believes that permitting Fund Shares to be listed and traded on the Exchange notwithstanding that less than 75% of the weight of a Fund's portfolio may consist of components with less than $100 million minimum original principal amount outstanding would provide the Funds with greater ability to select from a broad range of municipal securities, as described above, that would support a Fund's investment goal.

    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 the Shares that the NAV per Share will be calculated daily and that the NAV and the Disclosed Portfolio will be made available to all market participants at the same time. In addition, a large amount of information is publicly available regarding each Fund and the Shares, thereby promoting market transparency. Quotation and last sale information for the Shares and ETFs will be available via the CTA high-speed line, and from the national securities exchange [sic] on which they are listed. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its Equity Trading Permit Holders in an Information Bulletin of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Trading in Shares of the Funds 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 8.600(d)(2)(D), which sets forth circumstances under which Shares of the Funds may be halted. In addition, as noted above, investors will have ready access to information regarding the Funds' holdings, the IIV, the Disclosed Portfolio, and quotation and last sale information for the Shares.

    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 additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that principally hold municipal bonds and 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 each Fund's holdings, IIV, Disclosed Portfolio, 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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of additional types of actively-managed exchange-traded products that principally hold municipal bonds and that will enhance competition among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

    III. 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 within such longer period 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 such 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-2017-44 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-2017-44. 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-2017-44 and should be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09311 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80585; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-041] Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Fees at Rule 7047 May 3, 2017.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on April 20, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's fees at Rule 7047 to clarify the application of Nasdaq fees to Derived Data in light of changing industry practices. Specifically, the proposed changes will: (i) Limit application of the Derived Data Distributor Fee for Nasdaq Basic in Rule 7047(c)(2) only to those Distributors that both create and distribute Derived Data; (ii) clarify that the Nasdaq Basic per Subscriber user fees in Rules 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2), and the distributor fee in Rule 7047(c)(1), cover both Nasdaq data feeds and Derived Data therefrom; and (iii) clarify that the enterprise licenses for Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers in Rules 7047(b)(4) and (b)(5) cover the distribution of Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic. The proposal is described in further detail below.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to clarify the application of Nasdaq fees to Derived Data in light of changing industry practices. Specifically, the proposed changes will: (i) Limit application of the Derived Data Distributor Fee for Nasdaq Basic in Rule 7047(c)(2) only to those Distributors that both create and distribute Derived Data; (ii) clarify that the Nasdaq Basic per Subscriber user fees in Rules 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2), and the distributor fee in Rule 7047(c)(1), cover both Nasdaq data feeds and Derived Data therefrom; and (iii) clarify that the enterprise licenses for Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers in Rules 7047(b)(4) and (b)(5) cover the distribution of Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic.

    Nasdaq Basic

    Nasdaq Basic provides best bid and offer information from the Nasdaq Market Center, as well as last sale transaction reports from both the Nasdaq Market Center and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility (“TRF”). This is a subset of the “core” quotation and last sale data provided by securities information processors under the CQ/CT Plan and the UTP Plan. The three components of Nasdaq Basic, which may be purchased individually or in combination, are: (i) Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, which contains the best bid and offer on the Nasdaq Market Center and last sale transaction reports for Nasdaq and the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF for Nasdaq-listed stocks; (ii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, which covers NYSE-listed stocks, and (iii) Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT, which provides data on stocks listed on NYSE MKT and other listing venues whose quotes and trade reports are disseminated on Tape B.

    Derived Data Distributor Fee

    A Distributor 3 of Derived Data 4 from Nasdaq Basic may pay a $1,500 per month fee to disseminate such data to an unlimited number of Non-Professional Subscribers 5 under Rule 7047(c)(2). If a Distributor elects not to pay the Derived Data Distributor Fee, the Distributor must pay the per Subscriber charges for Non-Professionals set forth in Rule 7047(b)(2). In either case, Distributors of Derived Data must also pay the Distributor fee set forth in Rule 7047(c)(1).

    3 A “Distributor” is “any entity that receives NASDAQ Basic data directly from NASDAQ or indirectly through another entity and then distributes it to one or more Subscribers.” Nasdaq Rule 7047(d)(1).

    4 “Derived Data” is “pricing data or other information that is created in whole or in part from NASDAQ information; it cannot be reverse engineered to recreate NASDAQ information, or be used to create other data that is recognizable as a reasonable substitute for NASDAQ information.” Nasdaq Rule 7047(d)(5).

    5 A “Non-Professional Subscriber” is a natural person who is not (i) registered or qualified in any capacity with the Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, any state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or (ii) any commodities or futures contract market or association; engaged as an “investment adviser” as that term is defined in Section 201(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (whether or not registered or qualified under that Act); or (iii) employed by a bank or other organization exempt from registration under federal or state securities laws to perform functions that would require registration or qualification if such functions were performed for an organization not so exempt. Nasdaq Rule 7047(d)(3)(A).

    The Exchange has recently become aware that certain Distributors create Derived Data (“Primary Distributors”), and send it to other Distributors, which transmit the Derived Data in the same form that it was received to Subscribers (“Secondary Distributors”). The Exchange, in its initial filing for the Derived Data Distributor Fee in 2011, stated that the fee applied only to firms that “derive data from Nasdaq Basic” 6 i.e., the Primary Distributors. The text of Rule 7047(c)(2), however, does not distinguish between Primary and Secondary Distributors. Rule 7047(c)(2) states that “[a] Distributor may pay $1,500 per month to distribute Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic,” implying that all Distributors—both Primary and Secondary—may pay that fee. Further clarification appeared to be unnecessary at the time because the Exchange was not aware of the existence of Secondary Distributors.

    6See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64994 (July 29, 2011), 76 FR 47621 (August 5, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-091).

    In light of changing industry practice, the Exchange proposes to clarify the Rule to state that only Distributors that “create and distribute Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic” pay the fee, thereby excluding Secondary Distributors from application of Rule 7047(c)(2). This is a codification of Nasdaq's intent as set forth in the initial filing and Nasdaq's interpretation of Rule 7047(c)(2) based on that rule and related filings, and will not change customer fees.

    User Fees for Nasdaq Basic

    Professional Subscribers 7 to Nasdaq Basic pay per Subscriber monthly charges of $13.00 for Nasdaq Basic for Nasdaq, $6.50 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE, and $6.50 for Nasdaq Basic for NYSE MKT under Rule 7047(b)(1). Non-Professional Subscribers pay at the reduced monthly rates of $0.50, $0.25, and $0.25, respectively, under Rule 7047(b)(2).

    7 A “Professional Subscriber” is any Subscriber other than a Non-Professional Subscriber. Nasdaq Rule 7047(d)(3)(B).

    When the Derived Data Distributor Fee, currently set forth in Rule 7047(c)(2) was introduced in 2011, the Exchange explained in the accompanying filing that the fee “would be in lieu of non-professional subscriber fees,” 8 indicating that the monthly per Subscriber fees set forth in Rule 7047(b)(2) applied to Derived Data. There was no explicit reference to Derived Data in Rule 7047(b)(2) because the Exchange was not aware of instances in which Derived Data was distributed without a Nasdaq Basic data feed, rendering such a reference unnecessary.

    8See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64994 (July 29, 2011), 76 FR 47621 (August 5, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-091).

    The Exchange has recently become aware, however, that certain Subscribers purchase Derived Data without a Nasdaq Basic data feed. The Exchange proposes to clarify Rule 7047(b)(2), and the parallel rule for Professional Subscribers at Rule 7047(b)(1), to state that the per Subscriber monthly charges allow the transmission of both Nasdaq Basic feeds and/or any Derived Data therefrom.

    Similarly, the distributor fee for Nasdaq Basic in Rule 7047(c)(1) did not separately reference Derived Data because such data was not distributed without a Nasdaq Basic data feed. Because industry practice has changed, the Exchange proposes to clarify that the distributor fee in Rule 7047(c)(1) covers Derived Data, as well as the Nasdaq Basic data feed.

    These proposed changes will not change prices, but rather are a codification of the Exchange's original intent and its interpretation of these Rules based on the text of the Rules and their related filings, in light of changes in industry practice.

    Nasdaq Basic Enterprise Licenses

    Broker-dealers may purchase two enterprise licenses for Nasdaq Basic in lieu of per Subscriber user fees: (i) An enterprise license for Professional and Non-Professional Subscribers with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship under Rule 7047(b)(5); or (ii) an enterprise license for internal Professional Subscribers under Rule 7047(b)(4). The enterprise license for Subscribers in a brokerage relationship was introduced in 2011,9 but the rule did not specify whether that license would cover the distribution of Derived Data. The enterprise license for internal Professional Subscribers, introduced in 2014,10 did not explicitly reference Derived Data either.

    9See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65526 (October 11, 2011), 76 FR 64137 (October 17, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-130).

    10See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71507 (February 7, 2014), 79 FR 8763 (February 13, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-011).

    The enterprise license for internal Professional Subscribers was introduced as an alternative to the Nasdaq Basic user fees set forth in Rule 7047(b)(1), and the enterprise license for Subscribers with whom the broker-dealer has a brokerage relationship was designed as an alternative to the user fees set forth in Rule 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2). For the reasons set forth above, the fees set forth at Rules 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2) were intended to cover the distribution of Derived Data. Because these enterprise licenses were introduced as alternatives to Rules 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2), these licenses were intended to cover Derived Data as well. In light of a change in industry practice in which Derived Data is sometimes distributed without a proprietary data feed, the Exchange proposes to codify the original intent of the Exchange, and its interpretation of the Rules and related filings, and explicitly state that the enterprise licenses at Rules 7047(b)(4) and (b)(5) cover the distribution of Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic.

    In summary, the proposed changes clarify how Nasdaq Basic fees set forth in Rule 7047 apply to Derived Data. The first change clarifies that the Derived Data Distributor Fee does not apply to Secondary Distributors, i.e., entities that distribute, but do not create, Derived Data. The second change clarifies that the per Subscriber user fees set forth in Rule 7047(b)(1) and (b)(2), and the distributor fee in Rule 7047(c)(1) also allow the distribution of Derived Data. The third change clarifies that the enterprise licenses under Rules 7047(b)(4) and (b)(5) cover the distribution of Derived Data. None of these proposed changes raise the cost of Nasdaq Basic or any other Nasdaq product, but rather codify the original intent and ongoing interpretation of Rule 7047.

    The fees for all Nasdaq Basic products—including Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic—are entirely optional, in that they apply only to Distributors or Subscribers that opt to purchase Nasdaq Basic or Derived Data therefrom. The proposed changes do not impact the cost of any Nasdaq product, including Nasdaq Basic and any Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,11 in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,12 in particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

    12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” 13

    13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission14 (“NetCoalition”) the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based approach.15 As the court emphasized, the Commission “intended in Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be made available to investors and at what cost.” 16

    14NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

    15See NetCoalition, at 534-535.

    16Id. at 537.

    Further, “[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker dealers' . . . .” 17

    17Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).

    The Exchange believes that the current proposals—(i) to limit application of the Derived Data Distributor Fee, (ii) clarify the application of Nasdaq Basic per Subscriber user fees and a distributor fee to Derived Data, and (iii) establish that Derived Data is included in the Professional and Non-Professional enterprise licenses—are fair and equitable in accordance with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, and not unreasonably discriminatory in accordance with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act. The proposed changes do not change any fee, but rather codify and clarify Nasdaq's interpretation of its rules. Moreover, fees for Nasdaq Basic and its associated Derived Data, like all market data fees, are constrained by the Exchange's need to compete for order flow, and are subject to competition from other exchanges and among broker-dealers for customers. If Nasdaq is incorrect in its assessment, there is no barrier to block a competitor from entering the market with substantially similar products.

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are an equitable allocation and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fees to all similarly-situated Distributors.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.

    Nasdaq Basic—and all data derived from Nasdaq Basic—is subject to competition from the NYSE, BATS, and other exchanges that offer similar products. If Nasdaq Basic were to prove unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange would lose market share as a result.

    As noted above, the proposed changes do not affect any existing fees, which are, in any event, constrained by market forces in three distinct respects. First, all fees related to Nasdaq Basic are constrained by the competition among exchanges and other entities in attracting order flow. Firms make decisions regarding this and other proprietary data products based on the total cost of interacting with the Exchange, and, because the supracompetitive pricing of any proprietary data product increases the total cost of interacting with the Exchange, such pricing would harm order flow. Second, the price of Nasdaq Basic is constrained by the existence of multiple substitutes that are offered, or may be offered, by entities that offer proprietary or non-proprietary data. Third, the proposed fee will be constrained by competition among Distributors for Subscribers.

    Competition for Order Flow

    All fees related to Nasdaq Basic are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities seeking to attract order flow. Order flow is the “life blood” of the exchanges. Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their order flow, including thirteen self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (“BDs”) and various forms of alternative trading systems (“ATSs”), including dark pools and electronic communication networks (“ECNs”). Each SRO market competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two FINRA-regulated TRFs compete to attract internalized transaction reports. The existence of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity on the part of BDs, which may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.

    The level of competition and contestability in the market for order flow is demonstrated by the numerous examples of entrants that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook, Island, RediBook, Attain, and TracECN. A proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume. For a variety of reasons, competition from new entrants, especially for order execution, has increased dramatically over the last decade.

    Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD that competes for order flow is permitted to produce proprietary data products. Many currently do or have announced plans to do so, including NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSE Arca, and the BATS exchanges. This is because Regulation NMS deregulated the market for proprietary data. While BDs had previously published their proprietary data individually, Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and BDs to produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before possible. Order routers and market data vendors can facilitate production of proprietary data products for single or multiple BDs. The potential sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.

    The markets for order flow and proprietary data are inextricably linked: A trading platform cannot generate market information unless it receives trade orders. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume based on the total cost of interacting with an exchange, and data fees are a factor in the total platform analysis. A supracompetitive increase in the fees charged for proprietary data has the potential to impair revenue for the exchange as a result. The competition for order flow will therefore constrain prices for proprietary data products, including charges relating to Nasdaq Basic.

    Substitute Products

    The price of data derived from Nasdaq Basic is also constrained by the existence of multiple substitutes offered by numerous entities, including both proprietary data offered by other SROs or other entities, and non-proprietary data disseminated by Nasdaq in its capacity as a Securities Information Processor (“SIP”) for the national market system plan governing securities listed on Nasdaq as a national securities exchange (“Nasdaq UTP Plan”).

    The information provided through Nasdaq Basic is a subset of the best bid and offer and last sale data provided by the SIP. The “core” data disseminated by the SIP consists of best-price quotations and last sale information from all markets in U.S.-listed equities; Nasdaq Basic provides best bid and offer and last sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed stocks based on trade reports from the Nasdaq Market Center and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility. Many customers that purchase SIP data do not also purchase Nasdaq Basic. Where customers buy both products, they may shift the extent to which they purchase one or the other based on relative price changes. The SIP constrains the price of Nasdaq Basic because no purchaser would pay an excessive price for Nasdaq Basic when similar data is available from the SIP.

    Proprietary data sold by other exchanges also constrain the price of Nasdaq Basic because other exchanges, such as NYSE and BATS, also sell proprietary non-core data that include best bid and offer and last sale data. Customers would not pay an excessive price for Nasdaq Basic when substitute data is available from other proprietary sources, and customers would not typically purchase proprietary best bid and offer and last sale data from multiple exchanges.

    Competition for Subscribers

    Distributors that disseminate data derived from Nasdaq Basic are in competition for Subscribers. If the price of such data were set above competitive levels, Distributors would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to their competitors, and may lower their costs by substituting Nasdaq data with other products, in whole or in part. Competition for Subscribers therefore provides another constraint on the cost of Derived Data.

    In summary, market forces constrain the price of Nasdaq Basic through competition for order flow, competition from substitute data products, and in the competition among Distributors for Subscribers. For these reasons, the Exchange has provided a substantial basis demonstrating that the fee is equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory, and therefore consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.18

    18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    • Send an email to [email protected] Please include File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-041 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-041. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-041 and should be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.19

    19 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09312 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80580; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-25] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, To Adopt a New Market Data Product Known as the ETF Implied Liquidity Feed May 3, 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 28, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated this proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,4 which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

    I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to adopt a new market data product known as the ETF Implied Liquidity feed.

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.

    A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.22, Data Products, to adopt a new market data product known as the ETF Implied Liquidity feed. The ETF Implied Liquidity feed would be an optional data feed that would provide the Exchange's proprietary calculation of the implied liquidity and the aggregate best bid and offer (“BBO”) of all displayed orders on the Exchange and its affiliated exchanges 5 for all standard, non-leveraged U.S. equity Exchange Traded Funds (“ETFs”) traded on the System.6 An ETF's implied liquidity disseminated via the proposed feed would consist of the ETF's implied BBO (including the implied size) calculated via a proprietary methodology based on the national best bid and offer (“NBBO”), the number of shares of securities underlying one creation unit of the ETF, and the estimated cash included in one creation unit of the ETF. The Exchange will disseminate the aggregate BBO through the ETF Implied Liquidity feed no earlier than it provides its BBO to the processors under the CTA Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan.

    5 The Exchange's affiliates are Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., (“EDGA”), Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), and Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”) (“collectively, the “Bats Exchanges”).

    6 The securities underlying each of the U.S. equity ETFs included in the proposed feed must be considered NMS Securities as defined under Rule 600(b)(46) of Regulation NMS. 17 CFR 242.600(b)(46).

    The ETF Implied Liquidity feed would provide market participants with an additional price discovery tool that would assist in trading of standard, non-leveraged U.S. equity ETFs and their underlying securities. The Exchange's calculation of the ETF's implied liquidity via the ETF Implied Liquidity feed would provide a more granular measure of an ETF's intraday indicative value (“IIV”, also commonly referred to as intraday net asset value (“iNAV”)) by incorporating the NBBO and its size along with other data elements described above. This enhanced measure of implied liquidity can provide market participants with a more complete picture of the liquidity available for an ETF based on its underlying securities.

    As ETFs trade similar to stocks throughout the day, the IIV of the ETF can fluctuate with the prices of the underlying securities intraday. For this reason, ETF issuers are required to publish an IIV for the ETF during the trading day which provides a snapshot estimate of the value of the ETF based on the last sale for the underlying securities. The IIV is generally calculated and disseminated periodically intraday by summing the last sale of all of the ETF's underlying securities divided by the number of shares outstanding.7 This current calculation of IIV is designed to provide investors with a reasonable estimate of the value of the ETF. However, this calculation of IIV provides a single value that does not include size or account for an ETF trading at a premium or discount to the IIV. For one, current IIV calculations do not consider the liquidity of the ETF or underlying securities so traded prices may differ from the theoretical snapshot due to bid/ask spreads and/or market impact. Although arbitrage activity between the ETF and its underlying securities tends to keep the traded price very close to IIV, there may still be variations. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to calculate on a real-time basis a more granular and enhanced measure of IIV by incorporating the following data points for each ETF into its proprietary calculation of the ETF's implied liquidity: the NBBO (including size), the number of shares of securities underlying one creation unit of the ETF, and the estimated cash included in one creation unit of the ETF.8 The Exchange's calculation of the ETF's implied liquidity would provide additional data than what is currently provided via the ETF's IIV calculation of a single value, such as the implied best bid, the implied best offer and their implied sizes.

    7See Understanding Net Asset Value, available at http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/21025-understanding-net-asset-value.html (last visited February 21, 2017).

    8 The Exchange intends to include a disclaimer as part of the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed that would alert subscribers that the Exchange's calculation of the ETF's implied liquidity may differ from the fund's calculation of IIV or iNAV and does not account for potential creation or redemption fees associated with trading in the ETF's underlying basket of securities. In addition, the Exchange's calculation of the ETF's implied liquidity is an enhanced version of an ETF's NAV that is calculated and disseminated intra-day and is not intended to be confused with the ETF's end of day calculation of the ETF's NAV which consists of a single value.

    The Exchange believes providing the implied bid and the implied offer based on the ETF's underlying basket of securities can provide investors with even more insight into the true value of the ETF than the current calculation of IIV (or iNAV). The Exchange also notes that many market participants today calculate and provide to their customers IIV for ETFs in which they make markets. The proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed could serve to assist these market participants in developing and verifying their own IIV calculations provided to customers.

    The Exchange intends to file a separate rule change with the Commission proposing fees to be charged for the ETF Implied Liquidity feed. The Exchange anticipates offering the ETF Implied Liquidity feed on the date of effectiveness of the rule filing to establish those fees.

    2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest, and that it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, brokers, or dealers. This proposal is in keeping with those principles in that it promotes increased transparency through the dissemination of the ETF Implied Liquidity feed. The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with an alternative for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and purchasers that expressed an interest in improved, more granular calculations of an ETF's implied liquidity as provided by the proposed feed.

    9 15 U.S.C. 78f.

    10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 11(A) of the Act 11 in that it supports (i) fair competition among brokers and dealers, among exchange markets, and between exchange markets and markets other than exchange markets and (ii) the availability of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in securities to brokers, dealers, and investors. The ETF Implied Liquidity feed would be accessed and subscribed to on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, distributors and subscribers can discontinue their use at any time and for any reason. Furthermore, the proposed rule change is consistent with Rule 603 of Regulation NMS,12 which provides that any national securities exchange that distributes information with respect to quotations for or transactions in an NMS stock do so on terms that are not unreasonably discriminatory.

    11 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

    12See 17 CFR 242.603.

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that the data products proposed herein are precisely the sort of market data products that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS—by lessening regulation of the market in proprietary data—would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.13

    13See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (File No. S7-10-04) (“Regulation NMS Adopting Release”).

    By removing “unnecessary regulatory restrictions” on the ability of exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history.

    In addition, the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing market participants with an additional price discovery tool that would assist in trading of standard, non-leveraged U.S. equity ETFs and their underlying securities. As stated above, the proposed feed would provide investors with even more insight into the true value of the ETF than the current calculations of IIV (or iNAV) by incorporating the NBBO and its size along with other data elements described above. The proposed calculation of an ETF's implied liquidity via the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed can provide market participants with a more complete picture of the liquidity available for an ETF based on its underlying securities. The proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed could also serve to assist market participants in their own IIV (or iNAV) calculations that they provide to customers for ETFs in which they make markets. Therefore, the Exchange believes the proposed feed promotes just and equitable principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.

    Lastly, the ETF Implied Liquidity feed removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing investors with alternative market data and competing with similar market data products currently offered by the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”).14 The provision of new options for investors to receive market data was a primary goal of the market data amendments adopted by Regulation NMS.15

    14See Nasdaq's Global Index Data Service (“GIDS”) available at http://business.nasdaq.com/intel/indexes/index-data/index.html#!/tcm:5044-12151 (providing on a real-time basis intraday portfolio values, daily valuation information, such as NAV per Share, estimated cash per Share, estimated cash per creation unit, total cash per creation unit and total shares outstanding of the fund and ETF directory messages designed to provide the symbols of the ETF valuations). See footnote 28 of Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77714 (April 26, 2016), 81 FR 26281 (May 2, 2016) (describing Nasdaq's GIDS within the order approving SR-Nasdaq-2016-028). See also footnote 29 of Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78592 (August 16, 2016), 81 FR 56729 (August 22, 2016) (describing Nasdaq's GIDS within the order approving SR-Nasdaq-2016-061). See, e.g., the NYSE Arca, Inc.'s (“NYSE Arca”) EOD ETF Report available at http://www.nyxdata.com/Data-Products/NYSE-Arca-EOD-ETF-Report (providing information such as the ETF's closing trades and quotes at different key points during the trading day, as well referential information such as shares outstanding, the primary market, and NAV).

    15See Regulation NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13.

    B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.16 The Exchange believes that the proposal will promote competition by enabling the Exchange to offer a market data product similar to that currently offered by Nasdaq and NYSE Arca.17 Thus, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change is necessary to permit fair competition among national securities exchanges.

    16 The Bats One Feed is a data feed that disseminates, on a real-time basis, the aggregate BBO for securities traded on each of the Bats Exchanges. The Bats One Feed also contains the individual last sale information for the Bats Exchanges (collectively with the aggregate BBO, the “Bats One Summary Feed”). See Exchange Rule 11.22(j). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73918 (December 23, 2014), 79 FR 78920 (December 31, 2014) (File Nos. SR-EDGX-2014-25; SR-EDGA-2014-25; SR-BATS-2014-055; SR-BYX-2014-030) (Notice of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to Proposed Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to Establish a New Market Data Product called the Bats One Feed) (“Bats One Approval Order”). The Exchange would provide the aggregate BBO disseminated via the Bats One Summary Feed as part of the ETF Implied Liquidity feed. The Exchange utilizes the following data feeds to create the Bats One Summary Feed's aggregated BBO, each of which are available to vendors: EDGX Depth, EDGA Depth, BYX PITCH Feed, and BZX PITCH Feed. Rather than these depth-of-book feeds, the Exchange notes that a vendor seeking to build a competing product to the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed could simply utilize the top-of-book data feeds from each of the Bats Exchange's to create an aggregated BBO. These top-of-book feeds are EDGA Top, EDGX Top, BYX Top and BZX Top. The Exchange represents that a competing vendor could obtain these top-of-book data feeds from each of the Bats Exchanges on the same latency basis as the system that performs the aggregation and consolidation of the Bats One Summary Feed. See Bats One Approval Order. While the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed does not separately provide the ETF's NBBO, the number of shares of securities underlying one creation unit of the ETF, or the estimated cash included in one creation unit of the ETF, a vendor could obtain this information from the securities information processors and other publicly available sources to perform its own calculation of an ETF's implied liquidity to include as part of a competing product. Therefore, a vendor could create a product to compete with the proposed ETF Implied Liquidity feed on the same terms as the Exchange. With regard to cost, as stated above, the Exchange will file a separate rule filing with the Commission to establish fees for the ETF Implied Liquidity feed that would be designed to ensure that vendors could compete with the Exchange by creating a similar product.

    17See supra note 14.

    C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.

    III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (A) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed or such shorter time as the Commission may designate it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 18 and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,19 the Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.

    18 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

    19 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (1) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

    IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Comments

    • Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

    Send an email to [email protected]. Please include File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-25 on the subject line.

    Paper Comments

    • Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-25. 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-BatsBZX-2017-25 and should be submitted on or before May 30, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.20

    20 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2017-09314 Filed 5-8-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-80581; File No. SR-Phlx-2017-04] Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Permit the Listing and Trading of P.M.-Settled NASDAQ-100 Index® Options on a Pilot Basis May 3, 2017. I. Introduction

    On January 18, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (“Phlx” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to permit the listing and trading of P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 Index® (“NASDAQ-100”) options on a pilot basis. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on February 3, 2017.3 On March 14, 2017, the Commission extended the time period within which to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.4 On May 2, 2017, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received no comment letters on the proposed rule change.

    1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

    2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

    3See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79894 (January 30, 2017), 82 FR 9259 (“Notice”).

    4See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80241, 82 FR 14393 (March 20, 2017).

    5 In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange revised its proposal to add that raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by an appropriate index as agreed by the Commission and the Exchange, would be provided as part of the pilot data. When the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 with the Commission, it also submitted Amendment No. 1 to the public comment file for SR-Phlx-2017-04 (available at: www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2017-04/phlx201704.htm).

    The Commission is publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, from interested persons and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 6 to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.

    6 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).

    II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its rules to permit the listing and trading, on a pilot basis, of NASDAQ-100 options with third-Friday-of-the-month expiration dates, whose exercise settlement value will be based on the closing index value, symbol XQC, of the NASDAQ-100 on the expiration day (“P.M.-settled”).

    The Exchange represents that the conditions for listing the proposed contract (“NDXPM”) on Phlx will be similar to those for Full Value Nasdaq 100 Options (“NDX”), which are already listed and trading on Phlx, except that NDXPM will be P.M.-settled.7 In particular, NDXPM will use a $100 multiplier, and the minimum trading increment will be $0.05 for options trading below $3.00 and $0.10 for all other series. Strike price intervals will be set at no less than $5.00. Consistent with existing rules for index options, the Exchange will allow up to nine near-term expiration months, as well as LEAPS. The product will have European-style exercise and will not be subject to position limits, though there would be enhanced reporting requirements.8

    7See Notice, supra note 3, at 9260.

    8 For a more detailed description of the proposed NDXPM contract, see Notice, supra note 3.

    As proposed, the proposal would become effective on a pilot basis for a period of twelve months (“Pilot Program”). If the Exchange were to propose an extension of the Pilot Program or should the Exchange propose to make the Pilot Program permanent, then the Exchange would submit a filing proposing such amendments to the Pilot Program. The Exchange notes that any positions established under the pilot would not be impacted by the expiration of the pilot. For example, a position in a P.M.-settled series that expires beyond the conclusion of the pilot period could be established during the 12-month pilot. If the Pilot Program were not extended, then the position could continue to exist. However, the Exchange notes that any further trading in the series would be restricted to transactions where at least one side of the trade is a closing transaction.

    The Exchange proposes to submit a Pilot Program report to the Commission at least two months prior to the expiration date of the Pilot Program (the “annual report”). The annual report would contain an analysis of volume, open interest, and trading patterns. The analysis would examine trading in the proposed option product as well as trading in the securities that comprise the NASDAQ-100. In addition, for series that exceed certain minimum open interest parameters, the annual report would provide analysis of index price volatility and share trading activity. In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with periodic interim reports while the pilot is in effect that would contain some, but not all, of the information contained in the annual report. The annual report would be provided to the Commission on a confidential basis. The annual report would contain the following volume and open interest data:

    (1) Monthly volume aggregated for all trades;

    (2) monthly volume aggregated by expiration date;

    (3) monthly volume for each individual series;

    (4) month-end open interest aggregated for all series;

    (5) month-end open interest for all series aggregated by expiration date; and

    (6) month-end open interest for each individual series.

    In addition to the annual report, the Exchange would provide the Commission with interim reports of the information listed in Items (1) through (6) above periodically as required by the Commission while the Pilot Program is in effect. These interim reports would also be provided on a confidential basis. The annual report would also contain the information noted in Items (1) through (6) above for Expiration Friday, A.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 options traded on Phlx.

    In addition, the annual report would contain the following analysis of trading patterns in Expiration Friday, P.M.-settled NASDAQ-100 option series in the Pilot Program: (1) A time series analysis of open interest; and (2) an analysis of the distribution of trade sizes. Also, for series that exceed certain minimum parameters, the annual report would contain the following analysis related to index price changes and underlying share trading volume at the close on Expiration Fridays: A comparison of index price changes at the close of trading on a given Expiration Friday with comparable price changes from a control sample. The data would include a calculation of percentage price changes for various time intervals and compare that information to the respective control sample. Raw percentage price change data as well as percentage price change data normalized for prevailing market volatility, as measured by an appropriate index as agreed by the Commission and the Exchange, would be provided. The Exchange would provide a calculation of share volume for a sample set of the component securities representing an upper limit on share trading that could be attributable to expiring in-the-money series. The data would include a comparison of the calculated share volume for securities in the sample set to the average daily trading volumes of those securities over a sample period. The minimum open interest parameters, control sample, time intervals, method for randomly selecting the component securities, and sample periods would be determined by the Exchange and the Commission.9

    9See Notice, supra note 3, at 9261 and Amendment No. 1. The proposed Pilot Program for NDXPM options is similar to the pilot program approved for the listing and trading of P.M.-settled S&P 500 Index options (“SPXPM options”). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64011 (March 2, 2011), 76 FR 12775, 12776-77 (March 8, 2011) (“SPXPM Notice”).

    III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-Phlx-2017-04, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, and Grounds for Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act 10 to determine whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the legal and policy issues raised