Federal Register Vol. 81, No.217,
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 217 (November 9, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 217 (November 9, 2016)
| Page Range | 78701-78897 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2016-01-05 01:46:33
Document Modified: 2016-01-05 01:46:33
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 81 FR 78855 - Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78701 - Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda To Achieve a World Safe and Secure From Infectious Disease Threats | |
| 81 FR 78867 - Temporary Emergency Committee of the Board of Governors; Sunshine Act Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78895 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property Release at Madras Municipal Airport, Madras, Oregon | |
| 81 FR 78896 - Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Adoption and Notice of Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Boost-back and Landing of the Falcon 9 Full Thrust First Stage at SLC-4 West at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California and Offshore Landing Contingency Option | |
| 81 FR 78756 - Proposed Modification of the San Francisco, CA, Class B Airspace Area; Public Meetings | |
| 81 FR 78707 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Crew Alerting System (CAS) | |
| 81 FR 78812 - Notice to All Interested Parties of Intent To Terminate the Receivership of 10049, Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, North Carolina | |
| 81 FR 78812 - Notice of Termination of the Receivership of 10438, Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, South Carolina | |
| 81 FR 78812 - Notice of the Termination of the Recieverhsip of 10373, Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, Colorado | |
| 81 FR 78811 - Notice of the Termination of the Receivership of 10321, Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, Minnesota | |
| 81 FR 78836 - National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78836 - Performance Review Board Members; Appointments | |
| 81 FR 78774 - Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan: Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 124-Gramercy, Louisiana; Application for Subzone; Danos & Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC; Morgan City, Louisiana | |
| 81 FR 78777 - Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, With or Without Handles From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the Expedited Fourth Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Orders | |
| 81 FR 78808 - Notification of a Public Teleconference of the Science and Information Subcommittee | |
| 81 FR 78809 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Willingness To Pay Survey To Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England Waters | |
| 81 FR 78810 - Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council | |
| 81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 163-Ponce, Puerto Rico; Application for Subzone; AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc.; Toa Baja, Puerto Rico | |
| 81 FR 78789 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 | |
| 81 FR 78797 - Yuba County Water Agency; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests | |
| 81 FR 78806 - Ampex Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization | |
| 81 FR 78798 - Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of Draft General Conformity Analysis for the Atlantic Sunrise Project | |
| 81 FR 78802 - Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Cedar Station Upgrade Project | |
| 81 FR 78803 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 78813 - Submission for OMB Review; USA.gov National Contact Center Customer Evaluation Survey | |
| 81 FR 78794 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Draft Environment Impact Statement and Conduct a Public Scoping Meeting for the Proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project Within the Thousand Palms Area of Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California (Corps File No. SPL-2014-00238-RJV) | |
| 81 FR 78893 - North Coast Railroad Authority and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company-Petition for Declaratory Order; North Coast Railroad Authority and Northwestern Pacific Railroad Company v. Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District | |
| 81 FR 78812 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 81 FR 78757 - Providing Evidence of Disability | |
| 81 FR 78844 - Notice of the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and Notice of Availability of the Detailed Statement of Sale for the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska | |
| 81 FR 78865 - Construction Permit Application for the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC, Medical Radioisotope Production Facility | |
| 81 FR 78722 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans: Texas; Approval of Substitution for Transportation Control Measures | |
| 81 FR 78854 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act | |
| 81 FR 78811 - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau; Federal Advisory Committee Act; Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point Architecture | |
| 81 FR 78795 - Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development of Hydropower in Undeveloped Stream Reaches of the United States; Request for Information | |
| 81 FR 78775 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Information Collection for Self-Certification to the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework | |
| 81 FR 78724 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims | |
| 81 FR 78896 - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Meeting Notice | |
| 81 FR 78715 - Imposition of Special Measure Against North Korea as a Jurisdiction of Primary Money Laundering Concern | |
| 81 FR 78812 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 78864 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 78732 - Individual Monitoring Devices for Industrial Radiographic Personnel | |
| 81 FR 78840 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 81 FR 78839 - Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council | |
| 81 FR 78760 - Medicaid Program; Request for Information (RFI): Federal Government Interventions To Ensure the Provision of Timely and Quality Home and Community Based Services | |
| 81 FR 78838 - Endangered Species Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 81 FR 78843 - Notice of Public Meeting for the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 78759 - Safety and Security Zones; New York Marine Inspection and Captain of the Port Zone | |
| 81 FR 78772 - Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 81 FR 78835 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 78838 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78884 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Filing of and Extension of Review Period of Advance Notice Relating to Processing of Transactions in Money Market Instruments | |
| 81 FR 78878 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGX Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory Disqualification | |
| 81 FR 78867 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGA Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory Disqualification | |
| 81 FR 78869 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BYX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend BYX Rule, 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory Disqualification | |
| 81 FR 78873 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add to the Rules of the Exchange the Eleventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC | |
| 81 FR 78880 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Rules Concerning Payment of Compensation and Rebates, and Research Analyst Attestation Requirements in Order To Harmonize With Certain FINRA Rules and Make Other Conforming Changes | |
| 81 FR 78875 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Amend BZX Rule 2.5, Restrictions, Regarding Members and Associated Persons of Members Who Are or Become Subject to a Statutory Disqualification | |
| 81 FR 78890 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Institute a New Fee for the Distribution of Data | |
| 81 FR 78872 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Requirements in MSRB Rule A-4, on Meetings of the Board, Regarding the Formation of a Quorum | |
| 81 FR 78728 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Scup Fishery; Framework Adjustment 9 | |
| 81 FR 78851 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest | |
| 81 FR 78854 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilty Act | |
| 81 FR 78714 - Updated Statements of Legal Authority for the Export Administration Regulations | |
| 81 FR 78852 - Phosphor Copper from Korea; Scheduling of the Final Phase of an Antidumping Duty Investigation | |
| 81 FR 78863 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 78862 - Proposed Extension of Existing Collection; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 78861 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Information Collections: Pertaining to Special Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act | |
| 81 FR 78793 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request | |
| 81 FR 78866 - New Postal Products | |
| 81 FR 78772 - Non-Leveraged Rural Business Investment Program; Public Comment for Proposed Rule Changes | |
| 81 FR 78814 - Medicare Program; Town Hall Meeting on the FY 2018 Applications for New Medical Services and Technologies Add-On Payments | |
| 81 FR 78895 - Commission Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78864 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License | |
| 81 FR 78778 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 81 FR 78722 - Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Safety Zones; Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular; Monongahela River Mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River Mile 0.00-0.25, Ohio River Mile 0.0-0.3; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania | |
| 81 FR 78860 - Northshore Mining, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Silver Bay Power Company, Silver Bay, Minnesota; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78856 - Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78860 - Investigations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78856 - General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Development Dimensions International, Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, Lake Orion, Michigan; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78855 - Indiana Marujun, LLC, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Adecco, First Call And MS Companies Winchester, Indiana; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78855 - Huntley Power LLC, A Subsidiary Of NRG Energy, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Pontoon Solutions, Inc. And Clean MD Tonawanda, New York; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78859 - Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a Subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio; Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing Working On-Site at Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a Subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance | |
| 81 FR 78792 - Notice of Availability for Licensing-NIST's Patented Microfluidic Apparatus and Method To Control Liposome Formation | |
| 81 FR 78799 - Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes; Notice of the Second Technical Workshop on the Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking | |
| 81 FR 78804 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 81 FR 78802 - PE Hydro Generation, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions | |
| 81 FR 78801 - City of Vernon, California; Notice of Filing | |
| 81 FR 78799 - Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status | |
| 81 FR 78800 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project | |
| 81 FR 78801 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 81 FR 78806 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 81 FR 78776 - Ammonium Sulfate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value | |
| 81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 189-Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon Counties, Michigan; Authorization of Production Activity; Southern Lithoplate, Inc. (Aluminum Printing Plates); Grand Rapids, Michigan | |
| 81 FR 78773 - Foreign-Trade Zone 100-Dayton, Ohio; Application for Subzone Expansion; Thor Industries, Inc.; Jackson Center, Ohio | |
| 81 FR 78847 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley | |
| 81 FR 78848 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL; Correction | |
| 81 FR 78844 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PA | |
| 81 FR 78849 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL | |
| 81 FR 78846 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Albion College, Albion, MI | |
| 81 FR 78850 - Notice of Inventory Completion: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE | |
| 81 FR 78845 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, Omaha, NE | |
| 81 FR 78813 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities | |
| 81 FR 78813 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies | |
| 81 FR 78837 - National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78837 - National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78838 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 81 FR 78748 - Chartering and Field of Membership Manual | |
| 81 FR 78816 - Medicaid Program; Announcement of Medicaid Drug Rebate Program National Rebate Agreement | |
| 81 FR 78708 - Airworthiness Directives; Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 78756 - Control and Affiliation for Purposes of Market-Based Rate Requirements Under the Federal Power Act | |
| 81 FR 78711 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes | |
| 81 FR 78733 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Manufactured Housing |
Issue
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Parole Commission
Employment and Training Administration
Wage and Hour Division
Workers Compensation Programs Office
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the electronic CAS. 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.
These special conditions are effective December 9, 2016.
Martin R. Crane, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The aircraft is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,000 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 16 passengers and a crew of 2.
BHTI proposes that the Model 525 use a novel and unusual design feature, which is an electronic CAS. Section 29.1322 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), prescribes discrete colored lights for warning, caution, and advisory alerts. In this regard, § 29.1322 lacks adequate airworthiness standards for alerting messages and displays that do not use discrete colored lights, that include non-visual cues, that provide alerting information to the flightcrew, and that use integrated and multiple alerts concurrently.
The Model 525 CAS will have more effective integrated visual, aural, tactile, and alert messaging that will require special airworthiness standards, known as special conditions, to address crew alerting of failures or malfunctions in critical systems. These special conditions will add requirements from the airworthiness standards in § 25.1322 (Amendment 25-131) for advanced crew alerting systems in transport category aircraft.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendments 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 15, 2011, the date of application to the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: An advanced CAS system. The novel design includes the integration of audio and visual alerts, tactical sensors, and CAS message consolidation. The new technologies associated with integrated visual, aural, tactile, and alert messaging are more effective in alerting the flightcrew and aiding them in decision-making than the discrete colored lights for warning, caution, and advisory alerts prescribed in § 29.1322 alone.
The current 14 CFR part 29 standards do not provide adequate standards for the advanced CAS system of the Bell Model 525 helicopter due to the complexity of the aircraft systems and the modes of the fly-by-wire primary flight controls. The special condition will update definitions, define a prioritization scheme, expand color requirements, and address performance for flightcrew alerting to reflect changes in technology and functionality.
A notice of proposed special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter CAS was published in the
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issues the
(a) Flightcrew alerts must:
(1) Provide the flightcrew with the information needed to:
(i) Identify non-normal operation or aircraft system conditions, and
(ii) Determine the appropriate actions, if any.
(2) Be readily and easily detectable and intelligible by the flightcrew under all foreseeable operating conditions, including conditions where multiple alerts are provided.
(3) Be removed when the alerting condition no longer exists.
(b) Alerts must conform to the following prioritization hierarchy based on the urgency of flightcrew awareness and response.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) Warning and caution alerts must:
(1) Be prioritized within each category, when necessary.
(2) Provide timely attention-getting cues through at least two different senses by a combination of aural, visual, or tactile indications.
(3) Permit each occurrence of the attention-getting cues required by paragraph (c)(2) of these special conditions to be acknowledged and suppressed, unless they are required to be continuous.
(d) The alert function must be designed to minimize the effects of false and nuisance alerts. In particular, it must be designed to:
(1) Prevent the presentation of an alert that is inappropriate or unnecessary.
(2) Provide a means to suppress an attention-getting component of an alert caused by a failure of the alerting function that interferes with the flightcrew's ability to safely operate the helicopter. This means must not be readily available to the flightcrew so that it could be operated inadvertently or by habitual reflexive action. When an alert is suppressed, there must be a clear and unmistakable annunciation to the flightcrew that the alert has been suppressed.
(e) Visual alert indications must:
(1) Conform to the following color convention:
(i) Red for warning alert indications.
(ii) Amber or yellow for caution alert indications.
(iii) Any color except red, amber, yellow, or green for advisory alert indications.
(2) Use visual coding techniques, together with other alerting function elements in the cockpit, to distinguish between warning, caution, and advisory alert indications, if they are presented on monochromatic displays that are not capable of conforming to the color convention in paragraph (e)(1) of these special conditions.
(f) Use of the colors red, amber, and yellow in the cockpit for functions other than flightcrew alerting must be limited and must not adversely affect flightcrew alerting.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 40 NG airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as possible loss of engine power and emergency landing with consequent damage to the airplane and occupant injury caused by a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps that could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective November 29, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of November 29, 2016.
We must receive comments on this AD by December 27, 2016.
You may send comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH, N.A. Otto-Straße 5, A-2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria, telephone: +43 2622 26700; fax: +43 2622 26780; email:
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4144; fax: (816) 329-4090; email:
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent
Failures of V-clamps, Part Number (P/N) E4A-41-000-002, installed on the turbochargers, have been reported on DA 40 NG aeroplanes. One of the failures resulted in engine power loss and subsequent emergency landing. Preliminary investigations identified a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps as the possible cause of these failures.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to further occurrences of engine power loss, possibly resulting in an emergency landing with consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
To address this potential unsafe condition, DAI designed an improved V-clamp, P/N D44-9081-26-03, and issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) 40NG-046 (later revised), providing instructions to identify all the parts suspected to be part of the affected batch, and to replace these with the new V-clamp. The MSB also introduces repetitive inspections of all turbocharger V-clamps, irrespective of P/N.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive visual inspections of the V-clamps and, depending on findings, replacement. This AD also requires replacement of certain V-clamps with improved clamps.
Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016, and Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016. In combination, this service information describes procedures for inspecting the V-clamp for cracks and for correct installation and for replacing cracked and incorrectly installed V-clamps with parts of improved design. 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
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 this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. Failure of the V-clamp could result in loss of engine power and possible emergency landing, which could result in damage to the airplane and occupant injury. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.
This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the
We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
We estimate that this AD will affect 22 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the inspection requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the inspection in this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,870, or $85 per product.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the replacement requirement of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $75 per product.
Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the replacement in this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,520, or $160 per product.
A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.
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.
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
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.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 29, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model DA 40 NG airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 81: Turbocharging.
This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as manufacturing quality deficiency in a batch of V-clamps that could cause the V-clamp to crack and fail. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the V-clamp and possible loss of engine power, which could result in emergency landing with consequent damage to the airplane and occupant injury.
Unless already done, do the following actions.
(1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 2 months after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, inspect the V-clamp following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.
(2) If any crack or incorrect installation is found during any inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the V-clamp with an improved V-clamp, P/N D44-9081-26-03. After this replacement, continue with the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.
(3) Unless already replaced as required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, within the next 100 hours TIS after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 4 months after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, replace P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp with an improved P/N D44-9081-26-03 V-clamp. After this replacement, continue with the 100 hour TIS repetitive inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD. Do the replacement following the Instructions section in Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH (DAI) Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016, as specified in DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.
(4) Within 10 days after each inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, report the results to DAI at the address in paragraph (i)(3) of this AD using the Execution Report on page 3 of DAI Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016. If the initial inspection was done before November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), then the report for this inspection is required within 10 days after November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD).
(5) At the following compliance times, installing a V-clamp P/N E4A-41-000-002 is prohibited.
(i) Anytime a P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp is replaced with an improved P/N D44-9081-126-03 V-clamp, as required by paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this AD; and
(ii) As of November 29, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), if a P/N E4A-41-000-002 V-clamp is not currently installed.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0203, dated October 10, 2016, and Diamond Aircraft Temporary Revision AMM-TR-MÄM 40-853/b, dated July 15, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Mandatory Service Bulletin MSB 40NG-046/2, dated July 22, 2016.
(ii) Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Work Instruction WI-MSB 40NG-046, dated July 14, 2016.
(3) For Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH service information identified in this AD,
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. This AD requires an inspection for chafing damage of wire bundles and a hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and corrective action if necessary; and installation of clamps between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.
This AD is effective December 14, 2016.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 14, 2016.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at
Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
The Air Line Pilots Association, International and an anonymous commenter supported the NPRM.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requested that we respond to the following questions.
• EASA stated that the NPRM looks very similar to AD 2013-19-03, Amendment 39-17585 (78 FR 59798, September 30, 2013) (“AD 2013-19-03”). EASA asked if there is a more fundamental problem with wiring harnesses in the landing gear bay in the Model 737 fleet.
We agree that the unsafe conditions identified in this AD and in AD 2013-19-03 are similar; however, the reasons for the unsafe conditions, and the associated corrective actions in these ADs, differ. This difference is due to the occurrence of wire chafing in different locations in the landing gear bay. The underlying issue is limited space for the electrical system routing in the landing gear bay.
• EASA asked whether there is sufficient accessibility to inspect the affected area.
We have determined that there is sufficient space to inspect the landing gear bay.
• EASA asked why the spacer is only an optional action.
The source of service information that we reference in this AD, Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016 (“ASB 737-29A1119 R1”), specifies that the spacer addition is optional for cases where additional spacing is needed to allow adequate clearance.
• EASA asked what measures have been put in place to ensure the safety of
We consider that the standard operational procedures that are in place regarding loss of system B hydraulic pressure or a wheel well fire to be adequate to ensure the safety of the fleet, pending the completion of the actions required in this AD.
• EASA asked if the wire chafing issue is one of design with regulations, or non-compliance of the product with the design data.
We have determined that the issue is due to nonconformance to the design data.
No changes to the final rule are necessary in regard to the questions asked by EASA.
All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, Japan Airlines, Qantas Airways, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines (UA) requested that we reference Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 737-29A1119 IN 01, dated August 25, 2015; and Boeing Service Bulletin Information Notice 737-29A1119 IN 02, dated November 02, 2015; and new service information ASB 737-29A1119 R1. ANA commented that Boeing will not ship the top kits of needed parts until the release of ASB 737-29A1119 R1. UA requested that ASB 737-29A1119 R1 incorporate the Required for Compliance (RC) format.
We agree with the commenters' requests to incorporate ASB 737-29A1119 R1 as an appropriate source of service information. This service information incorporates the revisions in the Boeing information notices referenced by the commenters. In ASB 737-29A1119 R1, the part number of the subject wiring harness clamp has been corrected, the work instructions have been rewritten to improve operator usability, and the RC steps have been added. We have revised paragraphs (c), (g)(1), and (g)(2) of this AD to specify ASB 737-29A1119 R1. We have added a new paragraph (h) to this AD to give credit for actions done prior to the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly. We have also added new paragraph (i)(4) to this AD to address the RC language specified in ASB 737-29A1119 R1.
One commenter, Evki Meto, requested that we revise paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD, which proposed inspecting for chafing damage. The commenter requested that we expand the inspection to look for any damage. No reason was provided by the commenter.
We disagree with the commenter's request. We have determined that the inspection in paragraph (g) of this AD should emphasize chafing damage, as that damage relates to the unsafe condition being addressed by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM) requested that we revise the 24-month compliance time to 30 months. KLM stated that it intends to do the modification during C-check maintenance, but will not be able to comply without impact to its maintenance program with the 24-month compliance time due to its C-check maintenance interval, which is 30 months.
We do not agree with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for timely accomplishment of the required actions. Further, we arrived at the compliance time with manufacturer concurrence. In consideration of all of these factors, we determined that the compliance time of 24 months represents an appropriate interval in which the inspections can be done in a timely manner within the fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. Under the provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD, however, we will consider requests for approval of an alternative compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that an alternate compliance time would provide an acceptable level of safety. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
Aviation Partners Boeing stated that the installation of winglets per Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions.
We agree with the commenter that STC ST00830SE does not affect the accomplishment of the manufacturer's service instructions. Therefore, the installation of STC ST00830SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.
We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM.
We also determined that these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.
We reviewed ASB 737-29A1119 R1. The service information describes procedures for doing an inspection for chafing damage of the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, corrective actions, and installation of clamps and an optional spacer between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube. 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
We estimate that this AD affects 1,270 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD is effective December 14, 2016.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, 737-700, 737-700C, 737-800, 737-900, and 737-900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016 (“ASB 737-29A1119 R1”).
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic power.
This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
(1) Do a detailed inspection for chafing damage of the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-29A1119 R1. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
(2) Install new clamps and an optional spacer between the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of ASB 737-29A1119 R1.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (i)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
(i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled “RC Exempt,” then the RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.
(ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6479; fax: 425-917-6590; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, Revision 1, dated June 23, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; Internet
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.
(5) You may view this service information that is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule.
This rule updates the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) legal authority paragraphs in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to cite the most recent Presidential notice continuing an emergency declared pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This is a non-substantive rule that only updates authority paragraphs of the EAR. It does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
The rule is effective November 9, 2016.
Nancy Kook, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, Telephone: (202) 482-2440.
The authority for parts 730 and 744 of the EAR rests, in part, on Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001—Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786 and on annual notices continuing the emergency declared in that executive order. This rule revises the authority paragraphs for the affected parts of the EAR to cite the most recent such notice, which the President signed on September 15, 2016.
This rule is purely non-substantive and makes no changes other than to revise CFR authority paragraphs for the purpose of making the authority citations current. It does not change the text of any section of the EAR, nor does it alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). This rule does not impose any regulatory burden on the public and is consistent with the goals of Executive Order 13563. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
4. The Department finds that there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act requiring prior notice and the opportunity for public comment because they are unnecessary. This rule only updates legal authority citations. It clarifies information and is non-discretionary. This rule does not alter any right, obligation or prohibition that applies to any person under the EAR. Because these revisions are not substantive changes, it is unnecessary to provide notice and opportunity for public comment. In addition, the 30-day delay in effectiveness otherwise required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is not applicable because this rule is not a substantive rule. Because neither the Administrative Procedure Act nor any other law requires that notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Strategic and critical materials.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, parts 730 and 744 of the EAR (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4601
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), Treasury.
Final rule.
FinCEN is issuing this final rule to prohibit U.S. financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, North Korean banking institutions. The rule further prohibits U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions for the correspondent account of a foreign bank in the United States if such a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution, and requires institutions to apply special due diligence to guard against such use by North Korean financial institutions.
This final rule is effective December 9, 2016.
The FinCEN Resource Center, (800) 949-2732.
On October 26, 2001, the President signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 (the USA PATRIOT Act). Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act amended the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), codified at 12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951-1959, and 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332, to promote the prevention, detection, and prosecution of international money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Regulations implementing the BSA appear at 31 CFR Chapter X. The authority of the Secretary of the Treasury (the Secretary) to administer the BSA and its implementing regulations has been delegated to the Director of FinCEN.
Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Section 311), codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A, grants FinCEN the authority, upon finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a foreign jurisdiction, financial institution, class of transactions, or type of account is of “primary money laundering concern,” to require domestic financial institutions and financial agencies to take certain “special measures” to address the primary money laundering concern. The special measures enumerated under Section 311 are prophylactic safeguards that defend the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing. FinCEN may impose one or more of these special measures in order to protect the U.S. financial system from these threats. Special measures one through four, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(1)-(b)(4), impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. The fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows FinCEN to prohibit or impose conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for the identified jurisdiction by U.S. financial institutions. Section 311 identifies factors for the Secretary to consider and requires consultations with Federal agencies before making a finding that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that a jurisdiction, institution, class of transactions or type of account is of primary money laundering concern. The statute also provides similar procedures, including factors to consider and consultation requirements for selecting and imposing the fifth special measure.
In a Notice of Finding (NOF) published in the
In the NOF, FinCEN also noted that the North Korean government continues to access the international financial system to support its WMD and conventional weapons programs through its use of aliases, agents, foreign individuals in multiple jurisdictions, and a long-standing network of front companies and North Korean embassy personnel which support illicit activities through banking, bulk cash, and trade. Front company transactions originating in foreign-based banks have been processed through correspondent bank accounts in the United States and Europe. Further, the enhanced due diligence required by United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) related to North Korea is undermined by North Korean-linked front companies, which are often registered by non-North Korean citizens, and which conceal their activity through the use of indirect
In light of this Finding, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
As further described below, FinCEN is adopting this proposal as a final rule. In so doing, FinCEN considered public comment and the relevant statutory factors, and engaged in the required consultations prescribed by 31 U.S.C. 5318A.
In response to the NPRM and NOF, FinCEN received only one comment. The comment agreed with FinCEN's proposal of a prohibition under the fifth special measure, but recommended that FinCEN also impose an additional special measure under 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(2) to require domestic financial institutions to obtain beneficial ownership information of “property” held by nationals of North Korea or their representatives that is located in North Korea or that otherwise involves North Korea. The comment explained that such a requirement would help identify and expose networks of non-bank institutions and agents that establish and manage shell or front companies on behalf of the North Korean government.
As described above and in the NOF, FinCEN shares the concerns raised by the comment regarding North Korea's extensive use of deceptive financial practices, including the use of shell and front companies to obfuscate the true originator, beneficiary, and purpose behind its transactions. However, FinCEN's authority, as granted by Congress in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(2), applies only to information concerning the beneficial ownership of “account[s] opened or maintained in the United States” and thus would not extend to information relating to the beneficial ownership of property writ large, or to property outside the United States as the comment suggested. Nonetheless, FinCEN believes that the risks to the U.S. financial system posed by North Korea can be addressed through the prohibition on correspondent accounts and the related due diligence. Taken together, these requirements should, by and large, help prevent the flow of illicit funds from North Korea from entering the U.S. financial system. Accordingly, FinCEN believes that the prohibition and due diligence requirements imposed under the fifth special measure sufficiently address both FinCEN's concerns and the concerns raised by the comment.
In light of the Finding as detailed in the NOF, and based upon additional consultations with required Federal agencies and departments, and the consideration of public comments, the statutory factors discussed below, and all relevant factors, FinCEN has concluded that the prohibition under the fifth special measure as proposed in the NPRM is the appropriate course of action.
The prohibition on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts imposed by the fifth special measure will help guard against the money laundering and WMD proliferation finance risks to the U.S. financial system posed by North Korean financial institutions and their front companies. Imposing a prohibition under the fifth special measure also complements U.S. efforts to satisfy the requirement under UNSCR 2270 Paragraph 33, discussed in section IV.A.1 below, for all UN member states to sever correspondent relationships with North Korean banks.
In determining which special measures to implement to address the finding that DPRK is of primary money laundering concern described in the NOF, FinCEN considered the following factors:
FinCEN's action is consistent with steps taken by the international community to address North Korea's illicit financial activity. Between 2006 and 2016, the United Nations Security Council has adopted multiple resolutions, 1718,
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has issued a series of public statements expressing its concern that North Korea's lack of a comprehensive AML/CFT regime represents a significant vulnerability within the international financial system. The statements further called upon North Korea to address those deficiencies with urgency, and called upon FATF members and urged all jurisdictions to advise their financial institutions to give special attention to business relationships and transactions with North Korea in order to protect their correspondent accounts from being used to evade countermeasures and risk mitigation practices. Starting in February 2011, the FATF called upon its members and urged all jurisdictions to apply effective counter-measures to protect their financial sectors from the money laundering and financing of terrorism risks emanating from North Korea.
The prohibition under the fifth special measure imposed by this rulemaking prohibits covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent account in the United States for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. It also prohibits the use of a foreign bank's U.S. correspondent account to process a transaction involving a North Korean financial institution. As noted in FinCEN's NOF, none of North Korea's financial institutions currently maintain correspondent accounts directly with U.S. banks. Further, as noted above, U.S. financial institutions are currently subject to a range of prohibitions related to sanctions concerning North Korea, which has generally limited their direct exposure to the North Korean financial system. Therefore, FinCEN believes this action will not present an undue regulatory burden on U.S. financial institutions.
Under this final rule, covered financial institutions are also required to apply special due diligence to their foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against their use to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. U.S. financial institutions may satisfy their due diligence requirement by transmitting a notice to certain foreign correspondent account holders concerning the prohibition on processing transactions involving a North Korean financial institution through the U.S. correspondent account. U.S. financial institutions generally apply some level of screening and, when required, conduct some level of reporting of their transactions and accounts, often through the use of commercially available software such as that used for compliance with the economic sanctions programs administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and to detect potential suspicious activity. FinCEN believes financial institutions should be able to leverage these current screening and reporting procedures to detect transactions involving a North Korean financial institution.
Financial institutions in North Korea are not major participants in the international payment system and are not relied upon by the international banking community for clearance or settlement services. In addition, given existing domestic and multilateral sanctions, coupled with the FATF's calls for countermeasures to address North Korea's AML/CFT deficiencies, it is unlikely that the imposition of a prohibition under the fifth special measure with respect to North Korea would have a significant adverse systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system. In light of the reasons described in this rulemaking for imposing the fifth special measure, and based on available information, FinCEN believes that the need to protect the U.S. financial system outweighs any burden on legitimate North Korean business activity, and, therefore, the imposition of a prohibition under the fifth special measure would not impose an undue burden on such activities.
The exclusion from the U.S. financial system of jurisdictions that serve as conduits for significant money laundering activity, for the financing of WMD or their delivery systems, and for other financial crimes enhances national security by making it more difficult for proliferators and money launderers to access the U.S. financial system. To the extent that this action serves as an additional tool in preventing North Korea from accessing the U.S. financial system, this action supports and upholds U.S. national security and foreign policy goals. Further, imposing a prohibition under the fifth special measure both complements the U.S. Government's worldwide efforts to expose and disrupt international money laundering, and satisfies the requirement under UNSCR 2270 Paragraph 33 for all UN member states to sever correspondent relationships with North Korean banks.
FinCEN concludes that a prohibition under the fifth special measure is the only viable measure to protect the U.S. financial system against the money laundering threats posed by the DPRK. In making this determination, FinCEN considered alternatives to a prohibition under the fifth special measure, including the first four special measures and imposing conditions on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. For the reasons explained below, FinCEN believes that a prohibition under the fifth special measure would be the most effective and practical measure to employ to safeguard the U.S. financial system from the risks of illicit finance involving the DPRK.
As noted above, and in the NOF, North Korea is subject to numerous UNSCRs
Special measures one through four enable FinCEN to impose additional recordkeeping, information collection, and information reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions. Special measure five enables FinCEN to impose conditions as an alternative to a prohibition on the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. Given North Korea's flagrant disregard for multiple UN resolutions related to the proliferation of WMD, FinCEN does not believe that any condition, additional recordkeeping, or reporting requirement would be an effective measure to safeguard the U.S. financial system. Such measures would not prevent North Korea from accessing directly or indirectly the correspondent accounts of U.S. financial institutions, thus leaving the U.S. financial system vulnerable to processing the types of illicit transfers described in the NOF. Moreover, as OFAC sanctions prohibit a variety of financial transactions with the DPRK, recordkeeping related to transactions with the DPRK would be impractical as would conditioning the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts. As noted above, because North Korea has a history of engaging in deceptive financial practices to evade international sanctions and is known to utilize networks of front companies to engage in illicit activity, any conditions that would continue to allow the opening or maintaining of correspondent accounts for North Korean banks would not sufficiently protect the U.S. financial system. Therefore, in the case of the jurisdiction of North Korea, FinCEN views a prohibition under the fifth special measure as the only special measure that can adequately protect the U.S. financial system from North Korean illicit financial activity.
Section 1010.659(a)(1) of the rule defines a “North Korean banking institution” as any bank organized under North Korean law, or any agency, branch, or office located outside the United States of such a bank. This definition is consistent with the definition of “foreign bank” at 31 CFR 1010.100(u).
Section 1010.659(a)(2) of this rule defines a “North Korean financial institution” as all branches, offices, or subsidiaries of any foreign financial institution, as defined at 31 CFR 1010.605(f), chartered or licensed by North Korea, wherever located, including any branches, offices, or subsidiaries of such a financial institution operating in any jurisdiction, and any branch or office within North Korea of any foreign financial institution.
Section 1010.659(a)(3) of this rule states that “foreign bank” has the same meaning as provided in 31 CFR 1010.100(u).
Section 1010.659(a)(4) of this rule defines the term “correspondent account” by reference to the definition contained in 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(1)(i). Section 1010.605(c)(1)(i) defines a correspondent account to mean an account established to receive deposits from, or make payments or other disbursements on behalf of, a foreign financial institution, or to handle other financial transactions related to the foreign financial institution. Under this definition, “payable through accounts” are a type of correspondent account.
In the case of a U.S. depository institution, this broad definition includes most types of banking relationships between a U.S. depository institution and a foreign bank that are established to provide regular services, dealings, and other financial transactions, including a demand deposit, savings deposit, or other transaction or asset account, and a credit account or other extension of credit. FinCEN is using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for depository institutions in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
In the case of securities broker-dealers, futures commission merchants, introducing brokers-commodities, and investment companies that are open-end companies (“mutual funds”), FinCEN is also using the same definition of “account” for purposes of this rule as was established for these entities in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act requiring enhanced due diligence for correspondent accounts maintained for certain foreign banks.
Section 1010.659(a)(5) of this rule defines “covered financial institution” with the same definition used in the final rule implementing the provisions of section 312 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
• An insured bank (as defined in section 3(h) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813(h));
• a commercial bank;
• an agency or branch of a foreign bank in the United States;
• a Federally insured credit union;
• a savings association;
• a corporation acting under section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 611);
• a trust bank or trust company;
• a broker or dealer in securities;
• a futures commission merchant or an introducing broker-commodities; and
• a mutual fund.
Section 1010.659(a)(6) of this rule defines “subsidiary” as a company of which more than 50 percent of the voting stock or analogous equity interest is owned by another company.
Section 1010.659(b)(1) and (2) of this rule prohibits covered financial institutions from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. It also requires covered financial institutions to take reasonable steps to not process a transaction for the correspondent account of a foreign bank in the United States if such a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution. Such reasonable steps are described in 1010.659(b)(3), which sets forth the special due diligence requirements a covered financial institution must take when it knows or has reason to believe a transaction involves a North Korean financial institution. By expressly incorporating these due diligence requirements into the prohibition, the final rule clarifies that if a covered financial institution suspects transactions involve a North Korean financial institution, then the covered financial institution shall take steps to further investigate and prevent such transactions, including steps that do not necessarily lead to the closing of the account.
As a corollary to the prohibition set forth in section 1010.659(b)(1) and (2), section 1010.659(b)(3) of this rule requires a covered financial institution to apply special due diligence to all of its foreign correspondent accounts that is reasonably designed to guard against processing transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. As part of that special due diligence, covered financial institutions must notify those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institutions know or have reason to believe provide services to a North Korean financial institution that such correspondents may not provide a North Korean financial institution with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution. A covered financial institution may satisfy this notification requirement using the following notice:
Notice: Pursuant to U.S. regulations issued under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, see 31 CFR 1010.659, we are prohibited from opening or maintaining in the United States a correspondent account for, or on behalf of, a North Korean banking institution. The regulations also require us to notify you that you may not provide a North Korean financial institution, including any of its branches, offices, or subsidiaries, with access to the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution. If we become aware that the correspondent account you hold at our financial institution has processed any transactions involving a North Korean financial institution, including any of its branches, offices, or subsidiaries, we will be required to take appropriate steps to prevent such access, including terminating your account.
Covered financial institutions should implement appropriate risk-based procedures to identify transactions involving a North Korean financial institution. A covered financial institution may, for example, have knowledge through transaction screening software that a correspondent account processes transactions for a North Korean financial institution. The purpose of the notice requirement is to aid cooperation with correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving a North Korean financial institution from accessing the U.S. financial system. FinCEN does not require or expect a covered financial institution to obtain a certification from any of its correspondent account holders that access will not be provided to comply with this notice requirement.
Methods of compliance with the notice requirement could include, for example, transmitting a notice by mail, fax, or email. The notice should be transmitted whenever a covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe that a foreign correspondent account holder provides services to a North Korean financial institution.
Special due diligence also includes implementing risk-based procedures designed to identify any use of correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions. A covered financial institution is expected to apply an appropriate screening mechanism to identify a funds transfer order that on its face listed a North Korean financial institution as the financial institution of the originator or beneficiary, or otherwise referenced a North Korean financial institution in a manner detectable under the financial institution's normal screening mechanisms. An appropriate screening mechanism could be the mechanisms used by a covered financial institution to comply with various legal requirements, such as the commercially available software programs used to comply with the economic sanctions programs administered by OFAC.
A covered financial institution is also required to implement risk-based procedures to identify indirect use of its correspondent accounts, including through methods used to disguise the originator or originating institution of a transaction. As noted above, and in the NOF, FinCEN is concerned that a North Korean financial institution may attempt to disguise its transactions through the use of front companies, which would not explicitly identify the North Korean institution as an involved party in the transaction. A financial institution may develop a suspicion of such misuse based on other information in its possession, patterns of transactions, or any other method available to it based on its existing systems. Under this rule, a covered financial institution that knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account is being used to process a transaction involving a North Korean financial institution must take all appropriate steps to attempt to verify and prevent such use. Such steps may include a notification to its correspondent account holder requesting further information regarding a transaction, requesting corrective action to address the perceived risk, and, where necessary, terminating the correspondent account. If a covered financial institution deems it appropriate to terminate a correspondent account, it may re-establish such an account if it determines that the account will not be used to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.
Section 1010.659(b)(4) of this rule clarifies that paragraph (b) of the rule does not impose any reporting requirement upon any covered financial institution that is not otherwise required by applicable law or regulation. A
When an agency issues a final rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will “describe the impact of the final rule on small entities.” (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of the RFA, both banks and credit unions are considered small entities if they have less than $550,000,000 in assets.
Broker-dealers are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(h) as those broker-dealers required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). For the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the Small Business Administration (SBA). The SEC has defined the term small entity to mean a broker or dealer that: (1) Had total capital (net worth plus subordinated liabilities) of less than $500,000 on the date in the prior fiscal year as of which its audited financial statements were prepared pursuant to Rule 17a-5(d) or, if not required to file such statements, a broker or dealer that had total capital (net worth plus subordinated debt) of less than $500,000 on the last business day of the preceding fiscal year (or in the time that it has been in business if shorter); and (2) is not affiliated with any person (other than a natural person) that is not a small business or small organization as defined in this release.
Futures commission merchants (FCMs) are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(x) as those FCMs that are registered or required to be registered as a FCM with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), except persons who register pursuant to section 4f(a)(2) of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. 6f(a)(2). Because FinCEN and the CFTC regulate substantially the same population, for the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the CFTC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. In the CFTC's “Policy Statement and Establishment of Definitions of `Small Entities' for Purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,” the CFTC concluded that registered FCMs should not be considered to be small entities for purposes of the RFA.
For purposes of the RFA, an introducing broker-commodities dealer is considered small if it has less than $35,500,000 in gross receipts annually.
Mutual funds are defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(gg) as those investment companies that are open-end investment companies that are registered or are required to register with the SEC. For the purposes of the RFA, FinCEN relies on the SEC's definition of small business as previously submitted to the SBA. The SEC has defined the term “small entity” under the Investment Company Act to mean “an investment company that, together with other investment companies in the same group of related investment companies, has net assets of $50 million or less as of the end of its most recent fiscal year.”
As noted above, 80 percent of banks, 92.5 percent of credit unions, 17 percent of broker-dealers, 95 percent of introducing broker-commodities dealers, no FCMs, and seven percent of mutual funds are small entities.
The imposition of the fifth special measure requires covered financial institutions to provide a notification intended to aid cooperation from foreign correspondent account holders in preventing transactions involving North Korean financial institutions from being processed by the U.S. financial system. FinCEN estimates that the burden on institutions providing this notice is one hour. Covered financial institutions are also required to take reasonable measures to detect use of their correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.
All U.S. persons, including U.S. financial institutions, currently must comply with OFAC sanctions, and U.S. financial institutions have suspicious activity reporting requirements. U.S. financial institutions are currently subject to a range of sanctions prohibitions related to North Korea, which has limited their direct exposure to the North Korean financial system. More recently, on March 15, 2016, the President issued Executive Order 13722, which places additional sanctions on North Korea and has the effect of generally prohibiting U.S. financial institutions from processing transactions involving persons located in North Korea and the North Korean government, unless authorized by OFAC or exempt.
For these reasons, FinCEN certifies that this final rulemaking would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
The collection of information contained in this rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), and has been assigned OMB Control Number 1506-0071. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
The notification requirement in section 1010.659(b)(3)(i)(A) is intended to aid cooperation from correspondent account holders in denying North Korea access to the U.S. financial system. The information required to be maintained by section 1010.659(b)(4)(i) will be used by federal agencies and certain self-regulatory organizations to verify compliance by covered financial institutions with the provisions of 31 CFR 1010.659. The collection of information is mandatory.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Banks and banking, Brokers, Counter-money laundering, Counter-terrorism, Foreign banking.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 1010, chapter X of title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1829b and 1951-1959; 31 U.S.C. 5311-5314, 5316-5332; Title III, sec. 314 Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 307; sec. 701 Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(A) Notifying those foreign correspondent account holders that the covered financial institution knows or has reason to believe provide services to a North Korean financial institution that such correspondents may not provide a North Korean financial institution with access to the correspondent account maintained at the covered financial institution; and
(B) Taking reasonable steps to identify any use of its foreign correspondent accounts by a North Korean financial institution, to the extent that such use can be determined from transactional records maintained in the covered financial institution's normal course of business.
(ii) A covered financial institution shall take a risk-based approach when deciding what, if any, other due diligence measures it reasonably must adopt to guard against the use of its foreign correspondent accounts to process transactions involving North Korean financial institutions.
(iii) A covered financial institution that knows or has reason to believe that a foreign bank's correspondent account has been or is being used to process transactions involving a North Korean financial institution shall take all appropriate steps to further investigate and prevent such access, including the notification of its correspondent account holder under paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) of this section and, where necessary, termination of the correspondent account.
(4)
(ii) Nothing in this paragraph (b) shall require a covered financial institution to report any information not otherwise required to be reported by law or regulation.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular on the Monongahela River mile 0.00-0.22, Allegheny River mile 0.00-0.25, and Ohio River mile 0.0-0.3 extending the entire width of the three rivers. This zone is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the barge based firework event. During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting, or anchoring in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Pittsburgh or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 66 will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 9:15 p.m. on November 18, 2016.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety Zone for the annual Pittsburgh Santa Spectacular listed in 33 CFR 165.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 66 from 8 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. on November 18, 2016. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the marine event. Entry into the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Persons or vessels desiring entrance into or passage through the safety zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative. Vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the regulated area.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule; notice of administrative change.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making an administrative change to update the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to reflect a change made to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) on May 31, 2016, as a result of EPA's concurrence on a substitute transportation control measure (TCM) for the Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) portion of the Texas SIP. On August 16, 2016, the State of Texas, through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), submitted a revision to the Texas SIP requesting that EPA update its SIP to reflect a substitution of a TCM. The substitution was made pursuant to the TCM substitution provisions contained in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA concurred on this substitution on May 31, 2016. In this administrative action, EPA is updating the non-regulatory provisions of the Texas SIP to reflect the substitution. In summary, the substitution was a replacement of a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane TCM within the DFW 8-hour ozone nonattainment area with traffic signalization projects. EPA has determined that this action falls under the “good cause” exemption in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) which, upon finding “good cause,” authorizes an agency to make an action effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date otherwise provided for in the APA.
This action is effective November 9, 2016.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0329. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Jeffrey Riley, 214-665-8542,
On May 31, 2016, EPA issued a concurrence letter to TCEQ stating that the substitution of the DFW area US67/IH-35E HOV Lane TCM with traffic signalization project TCMs met the CAA section 176(c)(8) requirements for substituting TCMs in an area's approved SIP.
As a part of the concurrence process, the public was provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed TCM substitution. Public notice and comment was provided by the DFW metropolitan planning organization, the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG), during a Regional Transportation Council meeting held on May 12, 2016. Public notice for this meeting was published in 20 DFW area newspapers and circulars.
Through this concurrence process, EPA determined that the requirements of CAA section 176(c)(8) were met, including the requirement that the substitute measures achieve equivalent or greater emission reductions than the control measure to be replaced. Upon EPA's concurrence, the HOV Lane substitution took effect as a matter of federal law. A copy of EPA's concurrence letter is included in the Docket for this action. This letter can be accessed at
Under section 553 of the APA, an agency may find good cause where procedures are “impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The substitution was made through the process included in CAA section 176(c)(8). Effective immediately, today's action codifies provisions which are already in effect. The public had an opportunity to comment on this substitution during the public comment period prior to approval of the substitution. Immediate notice of this action in the
Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this administrative action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Because the Agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA or any other statute as indicated in the Supplementary Information section above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This administrative action also does 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This administrative action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. This administrative action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The administrative action also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This administrative action does not impose an information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
This document amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 to make it clear that special trailer (ST) tires are permitted to be installed on new trailers with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. It also excludes these trailers from a requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). The agency proposed these changes and, after a review of the comments received, has determined that these two revisions are appropriate and will not result in any degradation of motor vehicle safety.
This final rule is effective on November 9, 2016.
Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues, you may contact Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at (202) 366-9146, and by fax at (202) 493-2990. For legal issues, you may contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at (202) 366-2992, and by fax at (202) 366-3820. You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
On June 26, 2003, the agency published a final rule amending several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) related to tires and rims.
That final rule expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except for motorcycles. Prior to the enactment of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 110 only applied to passenger cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on passenger cars. In an effort to coordinate the upgraded vehicle standard, intended to apply to all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, with the standards used on tires for vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the language in FMVSS No. 110 was amended to require the use of tires meeting the new FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. The only exceptions provided in FMVSS No. 110 were for the use of spare tire assemblies with pneumatic spare tires meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 109 or non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 129.
With the expansion of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the performance tests and criteria within the standard became applicable to all light vehicles, including light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trailers that had previously been subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 120. However, FMVSS No. 110 specified a minimum performance requirement for rim retention among its many
After the 2003 rule took effect, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association (RVIA) shared two concerns with NHTSA that the trailer manufacturing industry had with FMVSS No. 110. First, RVIA and its members stated, from a literal reading of S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110, that special trailer (ST) tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below cannot be equipped on new trailers that are under 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less because that section only permits FMVSS No. 139-compliant tires to be equipped on trailers. Second, RVIA and its members questioned the need for the rim retention requirement for trailers in S4.4.1(b) and whether the dynamic rapid tire deflation test specified in that section could be conducted on trailers.
After reviewing these concerns, NHTSA issued, on its own initiative, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of March 13, 2013, proposing amendments to FMVSS No. 110 to address RVIA's concerns.
NHTSA received six comments on the proposal.
As stated in the March 2013 NPRM, NHTSA believes that S4.1 unnecessarily and unintentionally restricts the types of tires that can be used on light trailers. None of the commenters who addressed the issue opposed allowing ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 of less to be used on light trailers. NHTSA has not identified any increased safety risk associated with the use of ST tires and tires with rim diameter code of 12 or less on light trailers. Accordingly, NHTSA is finalizing its proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less to be equipped on light trailers.
TRA's comments, supported by RMA, suggest two additions to the proposal that require brief explanation. First, TRA suggested that FI tires be added to the list of tires that can be equipped on light trailers. We agree that, as with ST and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less, NHTSA did not intend to exclude the use of FI tires on light trailers. Nor have we identified any risks associated with the use of FI tires on light trailers. Accordingly, this final rule adds FI tires to the list of tires that may be equipped on light trailers contained in FMVSS No. 110.
Second, TRA suggested that the language of the proposal requiring that ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less be compliant with FMVSS No. 109 be changed to refer to FMVSS No. 119 instead. TRA's rationale behind this comment was that these tires could not be tested using FMVSS No. 109 because FMVSS No. 109 does not contain inflation pressures to use during testing.
After submitting its comments on this issue, in June 2013, TRA submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA clarify that ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and not those in FMVSS No. 109.
Therefore, we have revised our proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 of less that comply with FMVSS No. 109 to be used on light trailers by adding FI tires to the list of allowable tires and by also noting that such tires may also be compliant with FMVSS No. 119.
The commenters, with the exception of Mr. Brady, expressed support for the proposed amendment to exclude trailers from the rim retention requirement. Mr. Brady opposed excluding trailers from the rim retention requirement. He stated that the test could be performed by towing trailers at 60 mph. He also expressed concern with the number of tire failures identified in the NPRM. He directed NHTSA to complaints about a single ST tire model with 85 complaints. Further, he noted that even if injury rates are low, there can be significant property damage resulting from blowouts. He stated that the proposal appears to have been made to lower costs to manufacturers while exposing the public to risk.
In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that 963 complaints had been received containing both the words “tire” and “trailer”, but 942 of those complaints were related to the towing vehicle. Only 10 complaints were related to the tire issues the towed vehicle and 11 were not sufficiently specific to determine whether the complaint was related to the towing vehicle or the trailer.
Prior to the TREAD Act rulemaking, only vehicles such as passenger cars were subject to the tire retention requirement in FMVSS No. 110, which requires that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure. Light trailers were not included because they were covered by FMVSS No. 120. However, after the TREAD Act rulemaking, light trailers and other vehicles such as light trucks and vans were added to FMVSS No. 110. Although the agency only expressly stated its intent to extend the applicability of the rim retention requirement to light trucks and vans, there was no limitation in the regulatory text that excluded trailers or any other vehicle type subject to FMVSS No. 110 from this requirement. The extension of the applicability of this requirement to trailers resulted in the implementation of the first on-road compliance test that NHTSA would conduct on light trailers.
Although Mr. Brady stated that NHTSA could simply require that a trailer be towed at 60 mph in order to conduct the test, the agency notes that neither the text of S4.4.1(b), nor NHTSA's compliance test procedure contemplate the use of a towing vehicle. Without specificity, light trailer manufacturers cannot know how NHTSA would perform compliance testing of the rim retention requirement on trailers. Consequently, light trailer manufacturers would be responsible for certifying that their trailers comply with the rim retention requirement in any towing-towed vehicle configuration, which creates testing and certification issues.
Based upon NHTSA's review of the nine cases of trailer tire failures discussed in the NPRM, the agency found no injuries or fatalities nor was it apparent that any of these cases could be addressed by the rim retention requirement. Based on that information, NHTSA concludes that there are no data available to document a safety problem related to rim retention of trailer tires. NHTSA also concludes that there is no continued safety need for trailers to comply with the rim retention requirements in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. Accordingly, this final rule implements the proposal to exclude trailers from the rim retention requirement. NHTSA does not believe that this change will have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.
This final rule clarifies which tires can be installed on new light trailers and removes the requirement that trailers meet the rim retention requirement in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. It does not impose any substantive requirements. Instead it removes a restriction on the manufacture of light trailers. Consequently, these amendments may be given immediate effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
Similarly, good cause exists for these amendments to be made effective immediately pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). These amendments would allow light trailers to be equipped with tires designated for use on trailers, and it would relieve trailers from a performance requirement for which NHTSA has no associated test for compliance. We do not believe that these amendments will have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. The agency has further determined that the impact of this final rule is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
This final rule will not impose costs upon manufacturers. It clarifies the types of tires that can be installed on new light trailers and removes the rim retention requirement for light trailers. This final rule might result in cost savings to manufacturers associated with the certification of compliance with the rim retention requirement. However, we are unable to quantify any such cost savings. This final rule is not expected to have any impact on safety.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers of trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. Although we believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a significant economic impact on those manufacturers. This final rule will not impose any costs upon manufacturers and may result in cost savings. This final rule will relieve light trailer manufacturers of the burden and costs associated with the rim retention requirement.
NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision: When a
The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer, notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See
Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
To this end, the agency has examined the nature (
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” (61 FR 4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in court.
Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not any information collection requirement associated with this final rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law (
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
This final rule would not result in any expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million, adjusted for inflation.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
S4.1
(b) Notwithstanding the requirement in S4.1(a),
(1) Passenger cars may be equipped with pneumatic T-type temporary spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of § 571.109 or non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of § 571.129 and S6 and S8 of this standard. Passenger cars equipped with a non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall also meet the requirements of S4.3(e), S5, and S7 of this standard.
(2) Trailers may be equipped with ST tires, FI tires, or tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or below that meet the requirements of § 571.109 or § 571.119.
S4.4.1 * * *
(b) Except for trailers, in the event of rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97 km/h (60 mph), retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
This action changes the southern and eastern boundaries of the Southern Gear Restricted Area, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. This rule is intended to increase access to traditional squid fishing areas, while maintaining protection for juvenile scup.
Effective December 9, 2016.
Copies of the Scup Gear Restricted Area Modification Framework, including the draft Environmental Assessment, and the Regulatory Impact Review prepared by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in support of this action are available from Dr. Christopher Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901. The supporting documents are also accessible via the Internet at:
Emily Gilbert, Fishery Policy Analyst, phone: 978-281-9244; email:
Scup (
When scup was overfished prior to 2009, the Council and NMFS determined that juvenile scup mortality in small-mesh fisheries (
The background on the Council's development of this action is described in the proposed rule and not repeated here (August 18, 2016, 81 FR 55166).
This action removes the southern portions of the GRA that overlap statistical areas 631 and 632. Additionally, this action shifts the eastern boundary of the Southern GRA west, roughly following the outermost points of the proposed Deep-Sea Coral Protection Areas (September 26, 2016, 81 FR 66245). If approved, the Council's pending Deep-Sea Coral Amendment would implement area closures that would further restrict access to several canyon areas year-round. Many of these canyons are partially contained within the current boundaries of the Southern GRA, and this action would align those boundaries. The current and final Southern GRA are shown in the figure below. The updated Southern GRA coordinates are provided in the final regulatory text.
The Council designed these modifications to minimize overlap between the GRA and the recommended discrete deep-sea coral areas. The eastern boundary is intended to restore access to the squid fishery in areas approximately 55 to 60 fathoms (100 to 110 m) and deeper. The shift of the southern boundary north is based on analysis suggesting there are very few scup in statistical areas 631 and 632 from January through March. This action will marginally reduce the amount of protection for the scup stock in return for a modest increase in squid availability. The updated Southern GRA is smaller than the current one; slightly reducing coverage of the scup estimated to be covered by the GRA. However, analysis shows that this change will result in a modest increase in access for the squid and whiting fisheries and a slight increase in the availability of black sea bass in the GRA from January 1-March 15. It is important to note, however, that the amount of each stock (by weight) currently estimated to be within the GRA during the winter is only a small fraction of the total stock abundance. As a result, we do not expect the boundary changes to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting.
We received five comments on the measures outlined in the August 18, 2016 (81 FR 55166), proposed rule. All commenters expressed their support for the boundary modifications, noting the importance of balancing the needs of the squid fishing industry with the ability to protect juvenile scup.
One commenter also suggested that NMFS and the Council continue to monitor the squid fishery in the modified GRA area to see how the squid fishery benefits from these changes and how scup discards may be affected. Although we do not expect this boundary change to compromise the scup stock or result in overfishing for squid, black sea bass, or whiting, we agree that continued review of scup discards in this area is important. The Council can further modify this GRA in a future framework adjustment action if available information indicates the need to do so.
The Southern GRA coordinates at § 648.124(a)(1) are slightly adjusted from those presented in the proposed rule to remove an extraneous point and to better align with the coordinates
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Assistant Administrator has determined that this final rule is consistent with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass FMP, other provisions of 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 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 action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
There are no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements contained in any of the alternatives considered for this action.
Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a petition for rulemaking (PRM), dated July 14, 2016, from Dr. Arny Bereson of the Nondestructive Testing Management Association (NDTMA) and Mr. Walt Cofer of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT). The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to authorize use of improved individual monitoring devices for industrial radiographic personnel. The PRM was docketed by the NRC on August 12, 2016, and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-34-7. The NRC is examining the issues raised in PRM-34-7 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking.
Submit comments by January 23, 2017. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Edward Lohr, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0253, email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0182 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0182 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The petition was filed jointly by Dr. Arny Bereson and Mr. Walt Cofer on behalf of NDTMA and the ASNT. The petitioners state, among other things, that the NDTMA is a “U.S. non-profit organization dedicated to nondestructive testing (NDT) management, technology and regulation.” In addition, the petitioners state that the ASNT is a “U.S. non-profit technical society for NDT professionals that provides a forum for exchange of NDT technical information, NDT educational materials and programs, and standards and services for the qualification and certification of NDT personnel. The ASNT promotes NDT as a profession and facilitates NDT research and technology applications. As an independent certifying entity, the ASNT operates the only non-state-administered radiographer radiation safety certification program in the U.S.A.”
The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to authorize use of particular individual monitoring devices for industrial radiographic personnel. Specifically, the petitioners
The petitioners propose that the NRC (1) amend parts 20 and 34 of title 10 of the
The petitioners propose NRC amend 10 CFR 34.47(a) to authorize the use of dual-function electronic dosimeters (ED) and alarm ratemeters (ARM) in place of separate devices. The petitioners state that the proposed revisions would conform to the requirements in 10 CFR 30.33, “in that the equipment in question (dual-function ED/ARM, digital dosimeter) is adequate to protect health and minimize the danger to workers and the public.” The petitioners also state that the dual-function ED and ARM digital dosimeters “provide improved efficiencies, lower costs, and enhanced safety features.”
The petitioners are also proposing NRC amend 10 CFR 34.47(a)(3) to replace the reference to “ `other personnel dosimeters' with TLDs and OSLDs,” in order to leave open the option to use digital dosimeters without replacement. The petitioners note that “[t]his option should be mentioned in NUREG-1556, Vol. 2.”
The NRC is seeking comments and supporting rationale from the public on the following three questions:
1. Please comment on how the use of a dual-function device could achieve the current safety purpose of using independent devices, or if that requirement should be changed. Please reference publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information to support your position.
2. Please comment on whether changes similar to those proposed in the petition should be applied to other radiation protection regulatory requirements, such as 10 CFR parts 36 and 39. Please explain your position.
3. Please comment on what experiences or challenges users have encountered in the use of these dosimeters. Please reference publicly-available technical, scientific, or other data or information to support your position.
The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for docketing a PRM under 10 CFR 2.802, “Petition for rulemaking—requirements for filing,” and the PRM has been docketed as PRM-34-7. The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-34-7, to determine whether they should be considered in the rulemaking process. The NRC is requesting public comments on the petition for rulemaking.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing a proposed rule to establish test procedures for manufactured housing (MH). This test procedure would support standards DOE is directed to establish by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. DOE proposes to establish test procedures applicable to manufactured homes for determining compliance with the following metrics that were included in a June 17, 2016, notice of proposed rulemaking: The
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than December 9, 2016. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details.
Any comments submitted must identify the “Test Procedures NOPR for Manufactured Housing” and provide docket number EERE-2016-BT-TP-0032 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904-AC11. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Due to potential delays in DOE's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, DOE encourages respondents to submit electronically to ensure timely receipt.
For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
The docket Web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, send an email to
Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email:
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 460:
(1) ANSI/NFRC
(2) NFRC 200-2014, (“NFRC 200”), Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficient and Visible Transmittance at Normal Incidence.
Copies of ANSI/NFRC 100 and NFRC 200 can be obtained from the National Fenestration Rating Council, 6305 Ivy Lane, Ste. 140, Greenbelt, MD 20770, 301-589-1776.
(3) ASTM
(4) ASTM C1045-07(2013), (“ASTM C1045-07”), Standard Practice for Calculating Thermal Transmission Properties Under Steady-State Conditions.
(5) ASTM E1554-13, (“ASTM E1554-13”), Standard Test Methods for Determining Air Leakage of Air Distribution Systems by Fan Pressurization.
Copies of ASTM C518-15, ASTM C1045-07, and ASTM E1554-13 can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 610-832-9500.
(6) HVI
Copies of HVI 916 can be obtained from the Home Ventilating Institute, 4915 Arendell St., Ste. J, PMB 311, Morehead City, NC 28557, 855-484-8368.
See section IV.M for a more detailed discussion of each of these industry standards.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA, Pub. L. 110-140) directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. EISA directs DOE to base the standards on the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and any supplements to that document, except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost-effective or where a more stringent standard would be more cost-effective, based on the impact of the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total lifecycle construction and operating costs.
Section 413 of EISA also provides that DOE may consider the design and factory construction techniques of manufactured housing; base the climate zones under the proposed rule on the climate zones established by HUD in 24 CFR part 3280 rather than the climate zones under the IECC; and provide for alternative practices that, while not meeting the specific standards established by DOE, result in net estimated energy consumption equal to or less than the specific energy conservation standards as proposed. See 42 U.S.C. 17071(b)(2). Finally, section 413 of EISA authorizes DOE to impose civil penalties on any manufacturer that violates a provision of part 460.
DOE is publishing this test procedure NOPR to implement the directive in EISA 2007 to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. Test procedures are necessary to provide for accurate, comprehensive information about energy characteristics of manufactured homes and provide for the subsequent enforcement of the standards.
The IECC is a nationally recognized model code, developed under the auspices of, and published by, the International Code Council (ICC), which many state and local governments have adopted in establishing minimum design and construction requirements for the energy efficiency of residential and commercial buildings, including site-built residential and modular homes. The IECC is developed through a consensus process that seeks input from industry stakeholders and is updated on a rolling basis, with new editions of the IECC published
Chapter 3 of the 2015 IECC provides general requirements for the code, including referenced test procedures for determining
Chapter 4 of the 2015 IECC sets forth specifications for residential energy efficiency, including specifications for building thermal envelope energy conservation, thermostats, duct insulation and sealing, mechanical system piping insulation, circulating hot water system piping, and mechanical ventilation. Chapter 4 of the 2015 IECC was developed for residential buildings generally and are is not specific to manufactured housing.
The 2015 IECC references NFRC 100 to determine the
On June 17, 2016, DOE published a NOPR to establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing (hereafter the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR).
A public meeting regarding the manufactured housing energy conservation standards was held on July 13, 2016, and the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR provided for a comment period ending August 16, 2016. Comments provided to the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR and prior opportunities for comment, and the transcript from the public meeting, are available for public viewing at the
In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed two compliance options for building thermal envelope requirements: A prescriptive option and a performance option.
In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE did not propose test procedures for determining
DOE also proposed standards for the maximum air leakage rate for duct systems and minimum mechanical ventilation system fan efficiencies. 81 FR 39756, 39806. DOE did not include test procedures for these proposed requirements.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedures to support the proposed manufactured housing thermal envelope requirements, air leakage requirements, and fan efficacy requirements proposed in a new part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 10 CFR part 460.
While DOE has proposed test methods for manufactured housing, DOE has not included or proposed any additional compliance or enforcement provisions at this time. DOE anticipates that it will address issues related to certification, compliance, and enforcement of the proposed standards in a separate rulemaking. DOE will address any associated costs resulting from the compliance or enforcement as part of that rulemaking.
DOE's proposed actions relating to the test procedure are addressed in detail in the following sections of this notice.
The following sections focus on DOE's test procedure proposal,
To support the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, this test procedure applies to all manufactured homes meeting the proposed definition of manufactured home. In June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE defined manufactured home as a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which in the traveling mode is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length or which when erected on-site is 320 or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure.
Typically, manufactured homes are one-story, single- or multi-section homes. However, multi-story manufactured homes can be manufactured, and other less common constructions may also exist or be possible to manufacture. DOE requests comment on whether the proposed test procedures in section III.C apply to all constructions and designs of manufactured homes, and whether alternative test procedures are needed for certain manufactured housing constructions or designs. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
In this test procedure NOPR, DOE proposes test methods to determine the represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics in the manufactured housing energy conservation standards.
The test methods that are proposed in this NOPR are for the following metrics: (1)
To determine represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics described in section III.A, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference industry-accepted test standards. Additionally, as described in section I.A, EISA directs that the proposed energy conservation standards be based on the most recent version of the IECC. Therefore, to align this test procedure with the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE has aligned the test methods in this test procedure with those specified by the 2015 IECC while accounting for the unique aspects of manufactured housing design and construction. Also, by aligning with industry-accepted test methods, it is expected that the DOE test procedures will be less burdensome than if DOE were to establish new test procedures for manufactured housing manufacturers (MH manufacturers).
While the MH manufacturer would be responsible for complying with the proposed energy conservation standards, if finalized, DOE expects that MH manufacturers would choose to get the testing data from the entities manufacturing the components for manufactured homes. For the
In the following sections, DOE describes the industry test standards being proposed to be incorporated by reference in this NOPR to determine represented values for the proposed energy efficiency metrics. DOE proposes that the regulatory text for the test procedure NOPR is inserted within the same sections of the proposed regulatory text from the energy conservation standards.
DOE proposes to cross-reference U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations at 16 CFR part 460 (“FTC
The FTC
The exceptions to the FTC
(1) For all types of insulation except aluminum foil, heat flux would be measured only in accordance with ASTM C518-15, with the heat meter apparatus in the horizontal orientation.
(2) In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation
The following sections provide further discussion on each of the exceptions. In general, DOE requests comment on the percentage of insulation models used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for those models that have not been tested in accordance with the proposed test procedure, and to what alternative test procedure these insulation models are testing in accordance with.
DOE is proposing to include the following exception for measuring the heat flux to calculate
The FTC
DOE reviewed each of the industry standards to determine the differences between the standards, and whether any one of the standards could be used to test all types of insulation except aluminum foil. The primary difference among the industry standards is with respect to the apparatus used for measuring heat flow through the insulation sample, which could lead to slightly different measured values. Based on a review of specification sheets of insulation from multiple manufacturers, DOE determined that insulation manufacturers most commonly use ASTM C518 to test insulation for heat flux measurement. DOE understands that this is because
Within ASTM C518, there are provisions to use the heat meter apparatus either in the horizontal or vertical orientation. Based on discussions with the test lab, DOE proposes to test only in the horizontal orientation, as this orientation is what is widely used in the industry. Additionally, it is DOE's understanding that the horizontal orientation provides a more conservative
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference only ASTM C518-15 for determinations of
In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, DOE proposes that the ceiling insulation
In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed that ceiling insulation must have either a uniform thickness or a uniform density. 81 FR 39756, 39804. However, DOE understands that there might be instances, specifically near the truss heel at the eaves of the roof, where uniform thickness might not be possible. The FTC
DOE seeks comment on the proposed exception that if uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation
The test procedure for the determination of
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ANSI/NFRC 100 to determine the
Under ANSI/NFRC 100, an NFRC accredited laboratory is required to perform the simulation. For simulation under ANSI/NFRC 100, accredited laboratories must attend a certification workshop and pass examinations to achieve the status of NFRC Certified Simulator. In addition, NFRC accredited laboratories must maintain their simulation certification every year by participating in annual inter-laboratory comparison and by attending mandatory training workshops.
NFRC standards are widely used by industry, in a variety of capacities. Many component manufacturers affix an NFRC label to their fenestration products, which includes the
The test procedure for the determination of
DOE seeks comment on whether ANSI/NFRC 100 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the
In the June 2016 energy conservation standards NOPR, DOE proposed that
The Battelle Method requires several inputs to calculate
The additional instructions for the calculation of
DOE proposes to calculate the
The calculation of the
DOE seeks comment on whether section 3.1 from Overall
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference NFRC 200 to determine the SHGC for fenestration. Similar to ANSI/NFRC 100, NFRC 200 is also an industry-accepted standard, which is based on simulation software to measure energy performance ratings. This standard provides specifications for simulation and testing conditions. Under NFRC 200, an NFRC accredited laboratory is required to perform the simulation. The NFRC laboratory accreditation process is described in section III.C.2. If simulation cannot be performed to a reasonable accuracy, as determined by the NFRC accredited laboratory, NFRC 200 requires that NFRC 201 be used as a testing alternative to determine the component or total fenestration product SHGC. NFRC 201 measures the fenestration SHGC installed in a solar calorimeter.
The NFRC test standards are also used for the NFRC label, which includes the
The test procedure for the determination of the SHGC of fenestration is proposed in 10 CFR 460.102(d)(7) and 10 CFR 460.102(e)(2) of the regulatory text.
DOE seeks comment on whether NFRC 200 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the SHGC of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration models used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures, the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for fenestration models not already following the proposal, and to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with. DOE notes that any fenestration redesign cost for complying with the proposed MH fenestration requirements is addressed as part of the energy conservation standard. 81 FR 39756 (June 17, 2016). See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference ASTM E1554-13 to determine the total air leakage standard for duct systems. In this NOPR, DOE proposes that duct air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area (Q
ASTM E1554-13 is the industry standard for measuring duct air leakage via pressurization.
DOE expects that testing will be performed by the MH manufacturer in the factory before being installed in the field for both single- and multi-section homes. For multi-section homes, in many cases it will be impractical and/or costly to assemble the homes (by connecting the duct systems). For this reason, DOE proposes that the MH manufacturer test each section of the multi-section home separately. As with single section homes, the manufacturer would follow ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, and seal all interior air vents and registers. In addition, the manufacturer would seal any duct openings that are intended to connect ducts between sections of the home, unless that duct opening is being used as an inlet to pressurize the duct system. The MH manufacturer would then compute the total duct air leakage for the entire home based on the summation of the leakage measured for each section.
The test procedure for determination of total duct air leakage is proposed in 10 CFR 460.201(b) of the regulatory text.
DOE seeks comment on whether ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, is an appropriate industry standard to determine total duct air leakage for both single- and multi-section homes. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal for determining the total duct air leakage of multi-section homes by measuring the duct air leakage of each section separately, and whether alternative methods should be considered. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference HVI 916 to determine the mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. HVI 916 is published by the Home Ventilating Institute (HVI), and used for HVI-certified ratings programs. DOE has initially determined that the HVI 916 air flow test procedure establishes uniform methods for laboratory testing of powered home ventilating equipment for airflow rate (in cubic feet per minute per Watt, or cfm/W). HVI 916 describes the test equipment and the test methods for specific HVI classification groups.
DOE also sought to propose a fan efficacy test procedure consistent with the basis of the proposed energy conservation standard. While the 2015 IECC (the basis of the proposed fan efficacy standards) does not provide any specific test methods to determine fan efficacy, the prescribed efficacy levels in the 2015 IECC are based on the current ENERGY STAR specifications. HVI 916 is one of the referenced test methods for ENERGY STAR, so through incorporating by reference HVI 916, DOE ensures that the test procedure produces ratings on which the energy conservation standard is based.
ENERGY STAR provides another test method to determine airflow rating in addition to HVI 916,
DOE is also proposing to use test conditions specified by ENERGY STAR instead of the corresponding test conditions specified in HVI 916. DOE is specifying these test conditions to keep consistent with how the industry is currently testing fans to certify to ENERGY STAR (for consistency with the basis of DOE's proposed fan efficacy standard). Specifically, ENERGY STAR includes test conditions specifying test static pressures, test speeds, and testing configurations when using HVI 916. The test conditions that DOE proposes in this test procedure are the following:
(1) Bathroom and utility room fans with more than one speed that are vented externally, and in-line fans with more than one speed, must be tested and meet the performance criteria at each speed. A fan of this type that has a rotary speed dial or similar mechanism that allows for a theoretically infinite number of speeds must be tested and meet the applicable efficacy of this specification at its minimum and maximum speeds.
(2) Fans must be tested at the following static pressures to determine the airflow and efficacy: For ducted fans, conduct tests at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure; for direct discharge (non-ducted) fans, conduct tests at 0.03 inch water gauge static pressure; for in-line fans,
(3) Test range hood fans at working speed, as specified in HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see 10 CFR 460.3), to determine the airflow and efficacy. Range hoods must meet the minimum efficacy requirements in each possible configuration (horizontal and vertical) at working speed.
(4) When calculating efficacy, only measure the fan motor electrical energy consumption. Energy used for other fan auxiliaries (
DOE is also aware that ENERGY STAR includes a qualification criteria beyond efficacy requirements for the installed fan performance, with the exception of in-line, direct discharge fans and range hood models. This qualification criteria requires that ducted products be tested at 0.25 inch water gauge static pressure in addition to 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure, and that the airflow delivered at 0.25 inch water gauge static pressure shall be equal to or greater than 70 percent of tested airflow delivered at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure. This additional qualification criteria was added to ENERGY STAR specifications to allow for quality assurance of installed efficacy. DOE has only included testing at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure because the energy conservation standard is based on fan performance at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure.
The test procedure for determination of mechanical ventilation fan efficacy is proposed in 10 CFR 460.204(c) of the regulatory text.
DOE seeks comment on incorporating by reference only HVI 916 to determine mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. In addition, DOE seeks comment on the number of speeds, and the static
As previously discussed, DOE potentially will address the certification requirements
For testing applicable to components, DOE is proposing that the individual components tested would not be required to be selected from components actually installed by the MH manufacturer in a manufactured home. DOE is not proposing to require that a MH manufacturer directly perform the testing of components. DOE expects that MH manufacturers would be able to rely on testing performed by the component manufacturer. DOE expects that the tests can be performed on components prior to installation in the home. As such, DOE is proposing that the individual components selected for testing be representative of the components installed in the manufactured home.
DOE is further proposing that any representation made by a MH manufacturer of the performance of a manufactured home or a component, as compared to an energy conservation standard established by DOE, could not be more favorable than the mean value derived from sampling. For example, if a MH manufacturer were to make a representation of the efficacy of a mechanical ventilation fan, for which a minimum standard is proposed, the MH manufacturer would be prohibited from representing the fan as more efficient than the mean value calculated from sampled units, and as less efficient than the energy conservation standard. DOE is also clarifying that the proposed energy conservation standards should also be computed with the mean values for those standards that are expressed as functions.
DOE requests comment on the proposed sampling plan and method for calculating a represented value. DOE is particularly seeking comment on the proposed minimum sample size.
If adopted, the effective date for this manufactured housing test procedure would be 30 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this test procedure rulemaking is a “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
DOE reviewed the proposals for testing various categories of manufactured homes as proposed in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE preliminarily certifies that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is set forth in the following paragraphs. DOE will transmit the certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
For the manufacturers of manufactured homes, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. 13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at
To assess the potential impacts of this rulemaking on small entities, DOE conducted a focused inquiry of the companies that could be small business manufacturers of manufactured homes. During its market survey, DOE used available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved individual company Web sites and market research tools (
DOE identified thirty-seven manufacturers of manufactured homes. Of the thirty-seven, DOE identified thirty-one manufacturers that qualified as domestic small businesses.
DOE currently does not have a test procedure for manufactured housing. As described in the preamble, this test procedure proposes test methods for the following metrics: (1)
For the
For the
To determine the costs of the duct air leakage, DOE obtained input from the MH working group and estimates from publically available literature. During discussions of the MH working group, manufacturers expressed a view they would likely test every home's duct leakage to minimize risk of non-compliance with duct leakage standards.
DOE estimated the average number of homes produced per small manufacturer to be 682 homes. DOE determined this based on manufacturer interviews, manufactured housing shipments per year, and number of small manufacturers. Based on interviews, DOE determined that the top five large manufacturers control 70 percent of the market. Therefore, DOE assumed that the small manufacturers represented the remainder of the market, which is 30 percent. Based on the manufacturer housing institute (MHI) shipment data for 2015, there were 70,519 manufactured home shipments for that year. Therefore, the total number of manufactured homes produced by small manufacturers is 21,156. Based on thirty-one small manufacturers, DOE calculated the average number of homes produced per small manufacturer to be 682 homes. Therefore, to test each home at a cost of $233 per unit, the average total cost of testing is $158,906 per manufacturer.
DOE requests comment on the estimate of duct testing costs of $233 per home and any costs data or information on the duct testing cost for all types of manufactured housing covered by the rule including single section, multi-section, and multi-story manufactured housing. DOE also requests comment on testing burden specific to small MH manufacturers, and whether testing alternatives are available to reduce testing burden for all manufacturers. See section V.B for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.
This rulemaking does not include any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
In this notice, DOE proposes test procedures that it expects will be used for energy conservation standards for manufactured homes. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735.
DOE has examined this action and has determined that it would not pre-empt State law. This action impacts testing procedures applicable to energy efficiency requirements for manufacturers of manufactured homes. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rulemaking would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to establish test procedures for measuring the energy efficiency of manufactured housing is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The test procedures for manufactured homes proposed in this document incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards:
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by National Fenestration Rating Council, titled
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by National Fenestration Rating Council, titled
Additionally, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled
Also proposed to be incorporated by reference is the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled
DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference Method D, as calculated in section 9.4, of the test standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials, titled
Finally, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the test standard published by the Home Ventilating Institute, titled
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE requests comment on whether the proposed test procedures apply to all constructions and designs of manufactured homes including multi-section and multi-story homes, and whether alternative test procedures should be considered for certain MH constructions or designs. See section III.A.
(2) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to incorporate by reference only ASTM C518-15 for determination of the R-value of insulation for all types of insulation except aluminum foil. In addition, DOE also seeks comment regarding testing only using the horizontal orientation. See section III.C.1.a.
(3) DOE seeks comment on the proposed exception that if uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation R-value is based on the R-value listed on the insulation manufacturer's label corresponding to the mass or number of bags of insulation installed by the manufactured home manufacturer. See section III.C.1.c.
(4) DOE requests comment on the percentage of insulation materials used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these insulation models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options.
(5) DOE seeks comment on whether ANSI/NFRC 100 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the U-factor of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.2.
(6) DOE seeks comment on whether section 3.1 from Overall U-Values and Heating/Cooling Loads—Manufactured Homes is appropriate to determine the U-factor alternative to R-value of insulation. See section III.C.4.
(7) DOE seeks comment on whether NFRC 200 is an appropriate industry standard to determine the SHGC of fenestration. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of fenestration units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these fenestration models are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.5.
(8) DOE seeks comment on whether ASTM E1554-13, Test Method D, is an appropriate industry standard to determine total duct leakage requirements for both single- and multi-section homes. DOE also requests comment on the cost of carrying out the duct leakage test procedure on a per-home basis for both single-section, multi-section, and multi-story homes. See section III.C.6.
(9) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to sum the measured duct air leakage of each section of a multi-section home to calculate the total duct air leakage for multi-section homes. DOE also seeks comment on other alternative assemblies for determining total duct air leakage testing for multi-section homes. See section III.C.6.
(10) DOE seeks comment on incorporating by reference only HVI 916 to determine mechanical ventilation fan efficacy. In addition, DOE seeks comment on the number of speeds, and the static pressures being proposed. DOE also requests comment on the percentage of mechanical ventilation fan units used by the MH market that are already rated using the proposed test procedures; the cost of transitioning to these test procedures for manufacturers not already following the proposal; to what alternative test procedure these mechanical ventilation fan units are testing in accordance with; and other potential test procedure options. See section III.C.7.
(11) DOE seeks comment on the proposed sampling plan and method for calculating a represented value. DOE is particularly seeking comment on the proposed minimum sample size. See section III.D.
(12) DOE requests comment on the tentative conclusion that the proposed test procedure will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See section IV.B.
(13) DOE requests comment on the estimate of duct testing costs of $233 per home. See section IV.B.
(14) DOE requests comment on any duct leakage testing alternatives that are available to reduce testing burden for all manufacturers as well as any burden reducing alternatives for the other proposed test requirements. See section V.B.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Buildings and facilities, Energy conservation, Housing standards, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend part 460, as proposed to be added at 81 FR 39756 (June 17, 2016), of chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 17071; 42 U.S.C. 7101
The additions read as follows:
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(e)
(1)
(2) [Reserved]
(f)
(1)
(2)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(d)
(1) The
(i) For all types of insulation except aluminum foil, heat flux would be measured only in accordance with ASTM C518-15 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), with the heat meter apparatus in the horizontal orientation. Calculate
(ii) In the case that uniform ceiling insulation thickness is not possible due to the truss heel height at the eaves of the roof, the ceiling insulation
(2) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section for
(i) Randomly select a sample of insulation of at least one unit.
(ii) Test the insulation in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(iii) Determine the represented value of
Round representations of
(iv) The represented value of
(v) If multiple layers of insulation are used, the total
(3) Determine the
(4) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section for
(i) Randomly select a sample of fenestration products or doors of at least one unit.
(ii) Test the fenestration product or door (or use the prescriptive default value) in accordance with the test procedure at this paragraph (d)(4).
(iii) Determine the represented value of
(iv) The represented value of
(5) Calculate the
(6) To show compliance with the
(i) Randomly select a select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).
(ii) Calculate the
(iii) Determine the represented value of
(iv) The represented value of the
(7) Determine the SHGC of glazed fenestration products in accordance with NFRC 200 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3). Alternatively, use the prescriptive glazed fenestration SHGC default values specified for the corresponding glazed fenestration in Tables 460.102 through 460-106.
(8) To show compliance with paragraph (b) of this section with respect to glazed fenestration SHGC:
(i) Randomly select a sample of glazed fenestration products of at least one unit.
(ii) Test the glazed fenestration products in accordance with paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(iii) Determine the represented value of SHGC by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of SHGC calculated in paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.
(iv) The represented value of SHGC must be equal to or greater than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(7)(iii) of this section, and equal to or less than the standard described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Determine the represented value of R-value of insulation in accordance with paragraphs (d)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(ii) Determine the represented value of
(2) To show compliance with paragraph (c) of this section with respect to
(i) Randomly select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).
(ii) Determine the
(iii) Determine the represented value of
(iv) The represented value of
(3) Determine the represented value of SHGC of glazed fenestration products in accordance with paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(b) Determine the total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area according to the following equation:
(1) For multi-section homes, Q
(2) When measuring the duct leakage of an individual section of a multi-section manufactured home, follow ASTM E1554-13, Method D, and also seal any duct openings used to connect ducts between the sections of the home, unless the duct opening is being used as the inlet to pressurize the duct system.
(c) To show compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Randomly select a sample of manufactured homes (at least one home).
(2) Test the manufactured home duct system in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (b) of this section.
(3) Determine the represented value of total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of total air leakage per 100 square feet of conditioned floor area calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to one significant digit. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.
(4) The represented value must be equal to or less than the value calculated under paragraph (c)(3) of this section, and equal to or greater than the standard described in § 460.204(a).
(c) Determine the fan airflow (cfm) and efficacy (cfm/W) in accordance with HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), with the following exceptions.
(1) Bathroom and utility room fans with more than one speed, and in-line fans with more than one speed, must be tested and meet the performance criteria at each speed. A fan of this type that has a rotary speed dial or similar mechanism that allows for a theoretically infinite number of speeds must be tested and meet the applicable efficacy of this specification at its minimum and maximum speeds.
(2) Fans must be tested at the following static pressures to determine the airflow and efficacy: For ducted fans, conduct tests at 0.1 inch water gauge static pressure; for direct discharge (non-ducted) fans, conduct tests at 0.03 inch water gauge static pressure; for in-line fans, conduct tests at 0.2 inch water gauge static pressure.
(3) Test ducted range hood fans at working speed, as specified in HVI 916 (incorporated by reference; see § 460.3), to determine the airflow and efficacy. Range hoods must meet the minimum efficacy requirements in each possible configuration (horizontal and vertical) at working speed.
(4) When calculating efficacy, only measure the fan motor electrical energy consumption. Energy used for other fan auxiliaries (
(d) To show compliance with paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Randomly select a sample of whole-house mechanical ventilation system fan(s) of at least one unit.
(2) Test the whole-house mechanical ventilation system fan(s) in accordance with the test procedure at paragraph (c) of this section.
(3) Determine the represented value of fan efficacy by calculating the arithmetic mean of the sample. Round representations of fan efficacy calculated in paragraph (c)(3) of this section to two significant digits. Calculations of represented values must be rounded only after the calculation is completed.
(4) The represented value must be equal to or less than the value calculated under paragraph (d)(3) of this section, and equal to or greater than the standard described in paragraph (a) of this section.
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Proposed rule with request for comments.
The NCUA Board proposes to amend its chartering and field of membership rules to give applicants for community charter approval, expansion or conversion the option, in lieu of a presumptive community, to submit a narrative to establish common interests or interaction among residents of the area it proposes to serve, thus qualifying the area as a well-defined local community. The Board also proposes to increase up to 10 million the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area or a portion thereof. Finally, when such an area is subdivided into metropolitan divisions, the Board will permit a credit union to designate a portion of the area as its community without regard to division boundaries.
Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2016.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Matthew Biliouris, Deputy Director, or Robert Leonard, Director, Division of Consumer Access, or Rita Woods, Director, Division of Consumer Access South, Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Access, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-1140; or Senior Staff Attorney Steven Widerman or Staff Attorney Marvin Shaw, Office of General Counsel, at the above address or telephone (703) 518-6540.
NCUA's Chartering and Field of Membership Manual, incorporated as Appendix B to part 701 of its regulations (“Chartering Manual”),
In adopting the Credit Union Membership Access Act of 1998 (“CUMAA”), Congress reiterated its longstanding support for credit unions, noting their “specif[ic] mission of meeting the credit and savings needs of consumers, especially persons of modest means.”
As amended in 1998, the FCU Act directs the Board to define what constitutes a well-defined local
Until 2010, the Chartering Manual required FCUs to submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by documentation, that presents indicia of common interests or interaction among residents of a proposed community (the “narrative model”). In 2010, the Board abandoned the narrative model in favor of an objective model that gives credit unions a choice between two “presumptive communities” that each by definition qualifies as a WDLC (the “presumptive community model”).
In the case of a CBSA that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has subdivided into metropolitan divisions, a community consisting of a portion of the CBSA must conform to the boundaries of such divisions. Under either “presumptive community” option, an FCU must be able to serve its entire proposed community, as demonstrated by its business and marketing plans that must accompany an application to approve a new community charter, an expansion or a conversion.
In a final rule published elsewhere in this volume of the
The final rule also permitted the addition of an adjacent area to an existing “presumptive community” based on a narrative presenting indicia that residents on both sides of the perimeter share common interests and interact with each other, subject to the same population limit. The Board narrowly reinstated the narrative model for this singular purpose. To achieve that purpose, the final rule directed the Office of Consumer Financial Protection and Access (“OCFPA”) to issue guidance identifying indicia corresponding to the criteria that an FCU's narrative should address to support the addition of an adjacent area,
NCUA is proposing this rule to consider three recommendations from commenters that exceeded the scope of the Board's 2015 proposal to comprehensively overhaul the Chartering Manual.
Second, the Board seeks to explore the possibility of increasing up to 10 million the population limit that applies to a local community other than an SPJ, to permit approval of a community within that maximum to the extent of an FCU's ability and commitment to adequately serve that community without compromising either the safety and soundness of the FCU's operations or the cohesion of the community.
Finally, when an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a Combined Statistical Area as its WDLC, that portion is
Consistent with the Board's responsibility under CUMAA to facilitate access to credit union services, the objective of the three proposals in this rule is to give FCUs greater flexibility in providing services to consumers who are eligible for FCU membership, particularly those of modest means.
The proposed rule would permit general use of the narrative model—which the final rule makes available solely to add an adjacent area to an
The Act gives the Board broad discretion to define a WDLC for purposes of “making
NCUA's experience with community charter applications under the pre-2010 narrative model indicates that these particular thirteen criteria generally were the most useful and compelling, when properly addressed and documented, to demonstrate common interests or interaction among residents of a proposed community. An area need not meet all of the narrative criteria to qualify as a local community; rather, the totality of circumstances within the criteria a credit union elects to address must indicate a sufficient presence of common interests or interaction among the area's residents. The new appendix explains each criterion in order to guide applicants in the prudent use of their resources, with minimal burden, to assess whether an area qualifies as a local community and, if so, to develop an effective and well-documented narrative to justify Board approval of its application.
Accordingly, the Board will consider the following criteria, and the supporting documentation for each, in evaluating the presence of interaction and/or common interest among residents sufficient to establish that an area is a WDLC:
The proposed community includes an economic hub. An economic hub is evident when one political jurisdiction (city or county) within a proposed local community has a relatively large percentage of the community's population or is the primary location for employment. The application needs to identify the major employers and their locations within the proposed community.
The existence of organizations such as economic development commissions, regional planning boards, and labor or transportation districts can be important factors to consider. The more closely their service area matches the entire area, the greater the showing of interaction and/or common interests.
Designation of the proposed community by a government agency as a region or distinct district—such a regional transportation district, a water district, or a tourism district—is a factor that can be considered in determining whether the area is a local community. The more closely the designation matches the area's geographic boundaries, the greater the value of that evidence in demonstrating interaction and/or common interests.
The existence of shared services and facilities, such as police, fire protection, park districts, public transportation, airports, or public utilities, can contribute to a finding that an area is a community. The more closely the service area matches the geographic boundaries of the community, and the higher the percentage of residents throughout the community using those services or facilities, the more valuable the data.
Data on medical facilities should include admittance or discharge statistics providing the ratio of use by residents of each political jurisdiction. The greater the percentage of use by residents throughout the proposed community, the higher the value of this data in showing interaction. The application can also support the importance of an area hospital with documentation that correlates the facility's target area with the proposed local community and/or discusses the relative distribution of hospitals over a larger area.
College enrollment data can be a useful factor in establishing a local community. The higher the percentages of student enrollment at a given campus by residents throughout each part of the community, the greater the value in showing interaction. Additionally, the greater the participation by the college in community initiatives (
The existence of written agreements among law enforcement and fire protection agencies in the area to provide services across multiple jurisdictions can be an important factor.
The more closely the service area of an organization or club matches the proposed community's boundaries, and the greater the percentage of membership and services throughout the proposed community, the more relevant the data.
A newspaper that has a substantial subscription base in an area can be an indication of common interests. The higher the household penetration figures throughout the area, the greater the value in showing common interests. Subscription data may include print copies as well as on-line access.
Data to show the percentage of residents from each political jurisdiction who attend the events. The higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction. For sporting events, as well as some entertainment events, data on season ticket holders and memberships may be available. As with overall attendance figures, the higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction.
A television or radio station broadcasting in an area can be an indication of common interests. Objective data on viewer and listener audiences in the proposed community can support the existence of a community.
The narrative must identify the location of the major shopping centers and malls and include the percentage of shoppers coming from each part of the community. The larger the percentage of shoppers from throughout the community, the stronger the case for interaction. While of lesser value than the shopping data, identification of the shopping center's target area can be persuasive. The target area should closely match the geographic boundaries of the proposed community.
Some communities face varying degrees of geographic isolation. As such, travel outside the community can be limited by mountain ranges, forests, national parks, deserts, bodies of waters, etc. This factor, and the relative degree of isolation, may help bolster a finding of interaction or common interests.
The proposed rule would increase to 10 million the 2.5 million population limit that presently applies to a community consisting of a CBSA or Combined Statistical Area (each a “statistical area”) or other area an FCU designates, subject to an FCU's ability and commitment to adequately serve the area. Despite having just affirmed a 2.5 million population limit, the Board anticipates that many areas that would qualify as a WDLC will experience population growth over time. The Board therefore believes that its policy should anticipate and accommodate inevitable growth, to the extent permissible under the Act, in order to maximize the potential membership base available to community credit unions.
Three grounds justify a population limit of 10 million. First, it would conform to the population of the most populous SPJ the Board has approved (Los Angeles County) and, notwithstanding that an SPJ is not subject to a population cap, the FCU that serves that community has not experienced adverse safety or soundness consequences attributable to its population size.
Second, the Board believes the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area must be sufficiently accommodating to minimize the disparity between such communities and those comprised of an SPJ, which is unbound by any population limit. Third, a 10 million population limit would narrow the inherent imbalance between the population cap that applies to FCUs and the uncapped state credit unions in at least the nine states with a population between 2.5 and 10 million. The laws of these states allow their credit unions to serve a state-wide FOM.
To fully consider an increase in the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area, the Board seeks the benefit of public comments addressing the following issues affecting a statistical area—
• Whether to apply any population limit at all if the area is completely or primarily urban according to Census data.
• Whether to designate a particular metric on which to rely in setting and adjusting a population limit.
• Whether to apply any population limit at all to a CBSA or Statistical Area given that neither one is defined, by the Census or OMB respectively, according to maximum population.
• Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest SPJ NCUA has approved (
• Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to either the average or median population among either all CBSAs with a population in excess of 2.5 million, or all Combined Statistical Areas with population in excess of 2.5 million.
• Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the greater of either 2.5 million or a specific percentage of the population of the CBSA or Combined Statistical Area, and if so, what the percentage should be.
• Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest Metropolitan Statistical Area that is totally or partially encompassed by the proposed community.
• Whether to apply a population limit equivalent to the most populous/largest SPJ that is totally or partially encompassed by the proposed community.
• Whether to apply a population limit that, to ensure service to persons of modest means, excludes individuals living in a household that either is low- or moderate-income; that earns less than 200 percent of the national poverty level; or in which the principal wage-earner earns no more than the federal minimum wage (based on a 40-hour work week for 50 weeks per year); or is based on a combination of these metrics.
• Whether to delegate to NCUA staff the authority to set a population limit not exceeding a specified ceiling, and what that ceiling population should be (
• Whether to apply the same population limit regardless whether an FCU's initial application to
• Whether NCUA should establish a process to give the public notice and an opportunity to comment on an FCU's application for approval of a statistical area with a population in excess 2.5 million.
• Whether, in view of technological advances since CUMAA, such as the internet, the Board should consider whether, and how, online social communities qualify as WDLCs.
• Whether there are other definitions of “community” that would be a relevant gauge for community credit unions (
• Whether to reinstate the narrative model for use by FCUs seeking approval serve a statistical area within certain population parameters (
• Whether to discard the “presumptive community” model and reinstate the narrative model for general applicability, or to give FCUs the option to elect either model to support the area each proposes to serve as its community.
• Whether to add certain criteria to, or to delete or modify certain ones from, the new appendix of “Narrative Criteria to Identify a Well-Defined Local Community,” and how to evaluate the narrative criteria to determine whether an area qualifies as a WDLC.
When an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a single CBSA as its WDLC, the existing rule requires such portion to conform to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Divisions, if any, within the CBSA. In contrast, when an FCU seeks to serve a portion of a Combined Statistical Area as its WDLC—notwithstanding that it is far more expansive than a CBSA—that portion is
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to collections of information through which an agency creates a paperwork burden on regulated entities or the public, or modifies an existing burden.
Regarding a community common bond, the proposed rule gives community charter applicants the option, in lieu of a presumptive community, to submit a narrative to establish common interests and interaction among residents of the area it proposes to serve, thus qualifying the area as a well-defined local community. For that purpose, the rule includes guidance in identifying compelling indicia of interaction or common interests that would be relevant in drafting a narrative summarizing the indicia that community residents meet the requirements of a well-defined local community. In addition, the proposed rule increases to as much as 10 million the population limit on a community consisting of a statistical area, and when such an area is subdivided into Metropolitan Divisions, the rule permits a credit union to designate a portion of the area as its community without regard to division boundaries.
NCUA has determined that the procedure for an FCU to assemble and document a narrative summarizing the evidence to support its community charter application would create a new information collection requirement. As required, NCUA is applying to OMB for approval to amend the current information collection to account for the new procedure.
Prior to 2010, when NCUA moved to an objective model of presumptive communities, FCUs had the following three choices for a community charter: Previously approved areas; single political jurisdictions; and multiple political jurisdictions. For applications involving multiple statistical areas, NCUA required FCUs to submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by documentation, that presents indicia of common interests or interaction among residents of the proposed community.
In the five-year period preceding the move to an objective model of presumptive communities, NCUA processed an average of twenty-five FOM applications involving multiple statistical areas. Based on this historical trend, NCUA estimates that, on average, it would take an FCU's staff approximately 160 hours to collect the evidence of interaction or common interests and to develop a narrative to support its application to expand or to convert. Accordingly, NCUA estimates the aggregate information collection burden on existing and would-be FCUs that elect to use the narrative option to form, expand, or convert to a community charter would be 160 hours times 25 FCUs for a total of 4,000 hours. NCUA is proposing to amend the current information collection control number 3133-0015 to account for these additional burden hours.
Organizations and individuals wishing to submit comments on this information collection requirement should direct them to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Shagufta Ahmed, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, with a copy to the Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.
NCUA will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in:
• Evaluating whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NCUA, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of NCUA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of 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 (
Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. Primarily because this rule applies to FCUs exclusively, it will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.
NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
Credit, Credit unions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 701, Appendix B as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1752(5), 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1761a, 1761b, 1766, 1767, 1782, 1784, 1786, 1787, 1789. Section 701.6 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 3717. Section 701.31 is also authorized by 15 U.S.C. 1601
The revision and addition read as follows:
In addition to the documentation requirements in Chapter 1 to charter a credit union, a community credit union applicant must provide additional documentation addressing the proposed area to be served and community service policies.
An applicant has the burden of demonstrating to NCUA that the proposed community area meets the statutory requirements of being: (1) Well-defined, and (2) a local community or rural district.
“Well-defined” means the proposed area has specific geographic boundaries. Geographic boundaries may include a city, township, county (single, multiple, or portions of a county) or a political equivalent, school districts, or a clearly identifiable neighborhood. Although state boundaries are well-defined areas, states themselves do not meet the requirement that the proposed area be a local community.
The well-defined local community requirement is met if:
• Single Political Jurisdiction—The area to be served is a recognized Single Political Jurisdiction,
• Statistical Area—A statistical area is all or an individual portion of one of the following:
• A Core-Based Statistical Area designated by the U.S. Census Bureau, including a Metropolitan Statistical Area, with a population of 10 million or fewer; or
• A Combined Statistical Area designated by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, with a population of 10 million or fewer.
• To meet the well-defined local community requirement, an individual portion of a statistical area need not conform to internal boundaries within the area, such as metropolitan division boundaries within a Core-Based Statistical Area, and the boundaries of adjoining Core-Based Statistical Areas that form a Combined Statistical Area.
• Compelling Evidence of Interaction or Common Interests—In lieu of a statistical area as defined above, this option is available when a credit union seeks to initially charter a community credit union; to expand an existing community; or to convert to a community charter, subject in any case to the same population limit established for a statistical area. Under this option, the credit union must demonstrate a sufficient level of interaction or common interests among area residents to qualify the area as a local community. For that purpose, an applicant must submit for NCUA approval a narrative, supported by appropriate documentation, establishing that the area's residents meet the requirements of a local community.
To assist a credit union in developing its narrative, Appendix 6 of this Manual identifies criteria a narrative should address, and which NCUA will consider in deciding a credit union's application to: Initially charter a community credit union; to expand an existing community, including by an adjacent area addition; or to convert to a community charter. In any case, the credit union must demonstrate, through its business and marketing plans, its ability and commitment to serve the entire community for which it seeks NCUA approval.
This Appendix applies when the community a federal credit union (“FCU”) proposes to serve is not a “presumptive community”, under either option in chapter 2, section V.A.2. of Appendix B to Part 701, and thus would not qualify as a well-defined local community (“WDLC”). In that event, this Appendix prescribes the criteria an FCU should address in the narrative it develops and submits to the Board to demonstrate that residents of the community it proposes to serve share common interests and/or interact with each other. The narrative should address the criteria below as the FCU deems appropriate, as well as any other criteria it believes are persuasive, to establish to the Board's satisfaction the presence, among residents of the proposed community, of indicia of common interests and/or interaction sufficient to qualify the area as a WDLC.
The proposed community includes an economic hub. An economic hub is evident when one political jurisdiction (city or county) within a proposed local community has a relatively large percentage of the community's population or is the primary location for employment. The application needs to identify the major employers and their locations within the proposed community.
The existence of organizations such as economic development commissions, regional planning boards, and labor or transportation districts can be important factors to consider. The more closely their service area matches the entire area, the greater the showing of interaction and/or common interests.
Designation of the proposed community by a government agency as a region or distinct district—such a regional transportation district, a water district, or a tourism district—is a factor that can be considered in determining whether the area is a local community. The more closely the designation matches the area's geographic boundaries, the greater the value of that evidence in demonstrating interaction and/or common interests.
The existence of shared services and facilities, such as police, fire protection, park districts, public transportation, airports, or public utilities, can contribute to a finding that an area is a community. The more closely the service area matches the geographic boundaries of the community, and the higher the percentage of residents throughout the community using those services or facilities, the more valuable the data.
Data on medical facilities should include admittance or discharge statistics providing the ratio of use by residents of each political jurisdiction. The greater the percentage of use by residents throughout the proposed community, the higher the value of this data in showing interaction. The application can also support the importance of an area hospital with documentation that correlates the facility's target area with the proposed local community and/or discusses the relative distribution of hospitals over a larger area.
College enrollment data can be a useful factor in establishing a local community. The higher the percentages of student enrollment at a given campus by residents throughout each part of the community, the greater the value in showing interaction. Additionally, the greater the participation by the college in community initiatives (
The existence of written agreements among law enforcement and fire protection agencies in the area to provide services across multiple jurisdictions can be an important factor.
The more closely the service area of an organization or club matches the proposed community's boundaries, and the greater the percentage of membership and services throughout the proposed community, the more relevant the data.
A newspaper that is widely read in an area can be an indication of common interests. The higher the household penetration circulation figures throughout the area, the greater the value in showing common interests. Circulation data may include print copies as well as on-line access.
Data to show the percentage of residents from each political jurisdiction who attend the events. The higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction. For sporting events, as well as some entertainment events, data on season ticket holders and memberships may be available. As with overall attendance figures, the higher the percentage of residents from throughout the proposed community, the stronger the evidence of interaction.
A television or radio station broadcasting in an area can be an indication of common interests. Data on viewership or listenership in the proposed community can support the existence of a community.
The narrative must identify the location of the major shopping centers and malls and include the percentage of shoppers coming from each part of the community. The larger the percentage of shoppers from throughout the community, the stronger the case for interaction. While of lesser value than the shopping data, identification of the shopping center's target area can be persuasive. The target area should closely match the geographic boundaries of the proposed community.
Some communities face varying degrees of geographic isolation. As such, travel outside the community can be limited by mountain ranges, forests, national parks, deserts, bodies of waters, etc. This factor, and the relative degree of isolation, may help bolster a finding of interaction or common interests.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of meetings.
This notice announces three fact-finding informal airspace meetings to solicit information from airspace users and others concerning a proposal to amend the Class B airspace area at San Francisco, CA. The purpose of these meetings is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present views, recommendations, and comments on any proposed change to the airspace. All comments received during these meetings will be considered prior to any revision or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The meetings will be held on Monday, January 30, 2017, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Tuesday January 31, 2017 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.; and Wednesday February 1 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Doors open 30 minutes prior to the beginning of each meeting. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2017.
The meetings will be held at the following locations:
Rick Coté, FAA Support Specialist, Northern California TRACON, 11365 Douglas Road, Mather, CA 95655, (916) 366-4001.
(a) The meetings will be informal in nature and will be conducted by one or more representatives of the FAA Northern California TRACON. A representative from the FAA will present a briefing on the planned modification to the Class B airspace at San Francisco, CA. Each participant will be given an opportunity to deliver comments or make a presentation, although a time limit may be imposed to accommodate closing times. Only comments concerning the plan to modify the San Francisco Class B airspace will be accepted.
(b) The meetings will be open to all persons on a space-available basis (seating capacity listed with addresses). There will be no admission fee to attend and participate.
(c) Any person wishing to make a presentation to the FAA panel will be asked to sign in and estimate the amount of time needed for such presentation. This will permit the panel to allocate an appropriate amount of time for each presenter.
(d) Position papers or other handout material relating to the substance of these meetings will be accepted. Participants wishing to submit handout material should present an original and two copies (three copies total) to the presiding officer. There should be additional copies of each handout available for other attendees.
(e) These meetings will not be formally recorded. However, a summary of comments made at the meeting will be filed in the docket.
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking and termination of rulemaking proceeding.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking, which proposed to amend its regulations pursuant to the Federal Power Act to grant blanket authorizations to acquire 10 percent or more, but less than 20 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a public utility or holding company and amend the definitions of “affiliate” in the Commission's regulations. The Commission is also terminating a proceeding on the Electric Power Supply Association's petition requesting guidance.
The notice of proposed rulemaking published on January 28, 2010, at 75 FR 4498, is withdrawn as of November 9, 2016.
Regine Baus (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8757.
1. On January 21, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) in this proceeding.
2. On September 2, 2008, the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) filed a petition requesting guidance regarding concepts of control and affiliation as they relate to Commission-jurisdictional transactions under sections 203 and 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).
3. Commission staff held a workshop to address the issues raised by EPSA in its request. Comments were submitted in response to the workshop. In the course of considering the comments submitted and the discussions at the workshop, the Commission determined that the issues may call for more formal treatment and issued the NOPR in light of the comments and discussions.
4. In the NOPR, in connection with EPSA's proposal to rely on the filing of SEC Schedule 13G to demonstrate conclusively that an investor will not control the public utility in which it has invested, the Commission stated that while it has relied on these filings, in conjunction with other conditions and reporting requirements in the past for various purposes, it believed the Commission could better fulfill its statutory responsibilities if it did not rely exclusively on the Schedule 13G. The Commission stated that the primary regulatory purpose behind the beneficial ownership disclosure requirements under section 13(d) of the 1934 Act is to provide companies and their shareholders with information about large accumulations of a company's stock and that the requirements of section 13(d) do not bar an investor from acquiring control of a company, which is of utmost importance to this Commission.
5. With these concerns in mind, the Commission provided an alternative proposal in the NOPR. The Commission first proposed to amend part 33 of its regulations to grant a blanket authorization under section 203(a)(2) of the FPA, as well as a parallel blanket authorization under section 203(a)(1), for acquisitions of 10 percent or more, but less than 20 percent of the outstanding voting securities of a public utility or holding company, where the acquiring company files a statement certifying that such securities were not acquired and not held for the purpose or with the effect of changing or influencing the control of the public utility and such acquiring company complies with certain conditions designed to limit its ability to exercise control (Affirmation). Under the proposed amendment to part 33, a public utility whose voting securities are acquired, directly or indirectly, in any such transaction would be exempt from the requirements of an “affiliate” in part 35. The Commission also proposed to amend subpart H and subpart I of part 35 of the Commission's regulations to define an “affiliate” of a specified company as any person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such specified company.
6. The Commission received several comments in response to the proposal in the NOPR. A number of commenters raised concerns about the scope of the proposal, including the content of the proposed Affirmation and the commitments that the Commission proposed an acquiring company would need to agree to. Commenters also raised concerns regarding implementation of the proposal.
7. Upon further consideration and after review of the comments received in response to the NOPR, we will withdraw the NOPR and terminate this proceeding. We also terminate the proceeding on EPSA's Petition requesting guidance in Docket No. PL09-3-000.
8. As noted above, in the course of considering the discussions at the workshop to address the issues raised by EPSA in its Petition and the comments received following the workshop, the Commission determined that the issues may call for more formal treatment and issued the NOPR. We appreciate the feedback that the Commission received in response to the NOPR. As previously indicated, the comments submitted raised concerns regarding the scope and implementation of the proposal. Having considered these comments, we are persuaded to not seek to adopt the Affirmation and blanket authorization that the Commission originally proposed.
9. As a result, we withdraw the NOPR and terminate this rulemaking proceeding. We also terminate the proceeding on EPSA's Petition requesting guidance in Docket No. PL09-3-000.
By the Commission.
Railroad Retirement Board.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
We propose to amend our regulations regarding the submission of evidence in disability claims to require you to inform us or submit all evidence known to you that “relates to” your disability claims with exceptions for privileged communications and duplicates. This requirement would include the duty to submit all evidence obtained from any source in its entirety, subject to one of these exceptions. These modifications to our regulations would better describe your duty to submit all evidence that relates to your disability claim and will enable us to have a more complete case record which will allow us to make more accurate determinations of your disability status.
Submit comments on or before January 9, 2017.
You may submit comments, identified by [
Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available as comments are posted without change, with any personal information provided. We
1.
2.
3.
Comments are available for public viewing on the Federal eRulemaking portal at
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Assistant General Counsel, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2092, (312) 751-4945, TTD (312) 751-4701.
The Railroad Retirement Act (Act) gives the Railroad Retirement three member Board (Board) the authority to issue regulations governing the production of evidence used to adjudicate both occupational disability and total and permanent disability claims under the Act.
There has been recent interest by members of Congress in ensuring that Railroad Retirement disability benefits are reserved for only those who are truly disabled under either the standards of the occupational disability or total and permanent disability programs.
The analogy between total and permanent disability under the Railroad Retirement Act and the Social Security Act (SS Act) is well-established. See,
Additionally, the Railroad Retirement Board's (RRB) occupational disability program incorporates the records requirements of the total and permanent disability program.
We propose to revise § 220.45(a) to require you to inform the Board about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to your claimed disability.
The RRB's regulations further state that the Board may ask the claimant to provide evidence about his or her- (1) Age; (2) Education and training; (3) Work experience; (4) Daily activities both before and after the date the claimant says that he or she became disabled; (5) Efforts to work; and (6) Any other evidence showing how the claimant's impairment(s) affects his or her ability to work.” 20 CFR 220.45(b)(1) through (6).
The proposed rule would amend § 220.45(a) by adding “you must inform the Board about or submit all evidence known to you that relates to the claimed disability. This duty is ongoing and requires you to disclose any additional related evidence about which you become aware. This duty applies at each level of the administrative review process, including the appeals level, if the evidence relates to the period on or before the date of the hearings officer's decision.”
The proposed rule would also amend § 220.45(b) by expanding the explanation of the kinds of evidence to be submitted and excluding certain information protected by attorney-client privilege or by the attorney work product doctrine.
Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this proposed rule, we invite your comments on how to make it easier to understand.
For example:
• Are the requirements for the rule clearly stated?
• Have we organized the material to meet your needs?
• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
• Would a different format make the rule easier to understand?
We will not use this proposed rule until we evaluate public comments and publish a final rule in the
The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.
We certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects individuals only. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
This NPRM imposes no reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to OMB clearance.
Disability benefits, Railroad retirement.
The Railroad Retirement Board proposes to amend title 20, chapter II, subchapter F, part 220 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
45 U.S.C. 231a(1); 45 U.S.C. 231f.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(i) Oral or written communications between you and your representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us; or
(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. Your representative's “analysis of your claim,” means information that is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical source opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits (See paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this section).
(iii) The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section apply to communications between you and your non-attorney representative only if the communications would be subject to the attorney-client privilege, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney. The provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section apply to the analysis of your claim by your non-attorney representative only if the analysis of your claim would be subject to the attorney work product doctrine, if your non-attorney representative were an attorney.
(iv) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client that are related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analysis, theories, mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product doctrine allows you to withhold factual information, medical source opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits. For example, if you tell your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations, your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form, regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of the report.
(c)
(1) Your age;
(2) Your education and training;
(3) Your work experience;
(4) Your daily activities both before and after the date you say that you became disabled;
(5) Your efforts to work; and
(6) Any other evidence showing how your impairment(s) affects your ability to work. (In §§ 220.125 through 220.134, we discuss in more detail the evidence the Board needs when it considers vocational factors.)
By Authority of the Board.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Technical correction.
The Coast Guard is publishing this notice to correct a misstatement and typographical error in a previous
Comments and related material regarding the ANPRM must be received by the Coast Guard on or before January 3, 2017.
You may submit comments identified by docket number [USCG-2016-0799] using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
If you have questions on this technical correction, call or email Ari Scott, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (202) 372-3860, email
On November 3, 2016, the Coast Guard published an ANPRM which discussed the possibility of modifying the security zone around Liberty State Park and Ellis Island (81 FR 76545). On page 76545, in the second column, correct the second sentence of the Summary to read: “The proposed modification of the security zone would increase navigational safety in New York Harbor by allowing vessels to transit under the Ellis Island Bridge, rather than being required to transit the Anchorage Channel.”
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Request for information.
This request for information seeks information and data on additional reforms and policy options that we can consider to accelerate the provision of home and community-based services (HCBS) to Medicaid beneficiaries taking into account issues affecting beneficiary choice and control, program integrity, ratesetting, quality infrastructure, and the homecare workforce.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on January 9, 2017.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-2404-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-7195 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Melissa Harris, (410) 786-3397.
Jodie Anthony, (410) 786-5903.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and states have worked for decades to support increased availability and provision of quality home and community-based services (HCBS) for Medicaid beneficiaries. HCBS provide individuals who need assistance such as personal care, respite care, and many other services the opportunity to receive those services in their own homes or in the community versus institutional settings. Over time, the provision of HCBS has increased significantly, to the extent that Medicaid spending on HCBS now exceeds spending on institutional services. Efforts by the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS') Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to enforce the community integration mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA in
Through this RFI, we seek input from the public on ways that CMS can, through its statutory authority, accelerate this progress. We also seek input into how best to ensure high quality HCBS that promote the health and well-being of beneficiaries, enhance policies that ensure the integrity of such services and protect beneficiaries from harm, and address workforce challenges particular to this set of services, such as wages, training and retention. This is a request for information only. Respondents are encouraged to provide complete but concise responses to the questions outlined in section II. of this RFI. Please note that a response to every question is not required. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes; it does not constitute a Request for Proposal, application, proposal abstract, or quotation. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supplies or services or make a grant award. Further, we are not seeking proposals through this RFI and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Responders are advised that the U.S. Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party's expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future procurement, if conducted. It is the responsibility of the potential responders to monitor this RFI announcement for additional information pertaining to this request. Please note that we will not respond to questions about the policy issues raised in this RFI. We may or may not choose to contact individual responders. Such communications would only serve to further clarify written responses. Contractor support personnel may be used to review RFI responses. Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract or issue a grant. Information obtained as a result of this RFI may be used by the Government for program planning on a non-attribution basis. Respondents should not include any information that might be considered proprietary or confidential. This RFI should not be construed as a commitment or authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned.
To assist the public, the RFI provides background on the history and current status of HCBS, the dynamics that affect the provision of HCBS, and actions we have taken to implement HCBS in the context of expanded Medicaid authority and increased public demand. In addition, it solicits input on the following general topic areas, described in more detail later in this RFI, to inform the agency's future decision-making on actions to be taken within its statutory authority:
• What are the additional reforms that CMS can take to accelerate the progress of access to HCBS and achieve an appropriate balance of HCBS and institutional services in the Medicaid long-term services and supports (LTSS) system to meet the needs and preferences of beneficiaries?
• What actions can CMS take, independently or in partnership with states and stakeholders, to ensure quality of HCBS including beneficiary health and safety?
• What program integrity safeguards should states have in place to ensure beneficiary safety and reduce fraud, waste and abuse in HCBS?
• What are specific steps CMS could take to strengthen the HCBS home care workforce, including establishing requirements, standards or procedures to ensure rates paid to home care providers are sufficient to attract enough providers to meet service needs of beneficiaries and that wages supported by those rates are sufficient to attract enough qualified home care workers.
From the beginning of the Medicaid program in 1965, states were required to provide medically necessary, nursing facility care for most eligible individuals 21 or older.
Using these authorities, states, in partnership with the federal government, have developed a broad range of HCBS to provide alternatives to institutionalization for eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. Consistent with the preferences of many beneficiaries of where they would like to receive their care, the evolution of HCBS provision has been driven by federal statutory and policy changes, court decisions, and state initiatives as described later in this RFI.
HCBS are a critical component of the Medicaid program, and are part of a larger framework of progress toward community integration of older adults and persons with disabilities that spans
As noted previously, coverage of HCBS was included in statutory waiver authority in 1981 under section 1915(c) of the Act to permit states to provide an alternative to care provided in institutions. The Secretary may waive certain Medicaid requirements and permit states to offer HCBS to meet the needs of people who would otherwise require institutional care. States have used HCBS waiver programs to provide numerous services designed to support beneficiaries in their homes and communities consistent with their person-centered plans of care. As a result of receiving waiver services, many beneficiaries have been able to achieve greater independence and community integration and have been able to exercise self-direction, personal choice, and control over services and providers.
Considerable flexibility exists for states when proposing 1915(c) HCBS waivers. They can seek approval to offer services in only defined geographic areas of the state, “cap” enrollment of beneficiaries at a certain number, and maintain waiting lists. Further, services can be targeted based on the populations the state makes eligible for the waiver, such as individuals with a developmental disability, individuals who are elderly, or individuals with a physical disability or traumatic brain injury. HCBS waiver services specifically authorized under the statute include case management (that is, supports and service coordination), homemaker, home health aide, personal care, adult day health services, habilitation (both day and residential), and respite care. States can also propose “other” types of services that the Secretary may approve, including services that can assist in diverting or transitioning individuals from institutional settings into their homes and community. The statute requires that average estimated per capita expenditures for services provided under the waiver cannot exceed the average amount that would have been spent on waiver enrollees in institutions, absent the waiver.
HCBS waiver authority has been pivotal in assisting beneficiaries to achieve community living goals. The passage of the ADA of 1990 and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA in
Significant progress in the realm of HCBS also occurred through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, (Pub. L. 109-171) with the creation of two new state plan options under the new section 1915(i) and (j) of the Act, as well as the Money Follows the Person Rebalancing Demonstration
The shift in funding to HCBS accounting for a majority of LTSS spending represents an important achievement, with a doubling of the percentage of LTSS provided in the community since 2000. However this statistic masks significant differences in spending by population. HCBS spending for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities represented approximately three-quarters of Medicaid LTSS spending in 2014. This far surpasses the HCBS spending percentage for older adults, individuals with physical disabilities, and individuals with serious mental illness/serious emotional disturbances, which is only 41percent of total LTSS spending.
Additional information on LTSS, including program information and expenditure reports, is available at
In recognition of the shift to community-based care and based on the experience and understanding of the challenges in overseeing such programs, in the January 16, 2014
The principle of community integration, and the requirement that coverage of HCBS be based on person-centered service plans that outline how individuals wish to exercise choices, are at the heart of the home and community-based settings criteria. Given the scope of the changes mandated by the rule, we provided states with a transition period (through March 2019) to bring existing programs into compliance with the HCBS setting requirements. During this transition period, states are working with providers, managed care entities, advocacy organizations, beneficiaries and family members, and other stakeholders to complete assessments of existing HCBS provision and to determine how to implement needed revisions to ensure adherence with regulatory requirements.
In July 2014, we also established the Medicaid Innovation Accelerator Program (IAP) which seeks to improve the care and health for Medicaid beneficiaries and reduce costs by supporting states' ongoing payment and delivery system reforms through targeted technical support.
We are also actively engaged in efforts to improve the quality of care provided to individuals receiving HCBS. In addition to the ongoing monitoring of quality requirements embedded in the various HCBS authorities and programs and the quality work being done through IAP, we have developed an experience of care survey, developed under the Testing Experience and Functional Tools (TEFT) grant, which has been awarded the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) trademark. The CAHPS HCBS Survey is now available
Our quality efforts are guided by the CMS Quality Strategy,
We believe that these strategies and efforts underway across CMS to achieve strategy goals will drive change as called for by the Commission on Long-Term Care and highlighted in the recent National Quality Forum (NQF) report released in September 2016, entitled
For more information on quality and performance measures, as well as many relevant past and present public-private efforts pertaining to HCBS quality, please see Appendix A of this RFI.
Finally, in support of achieving additional progress toward broadening access to HCBS, the President's FYs 2016
This brief background cannot capture all of the important developments that have shaped the current long-term care landscape. Critical contributions from persons with disabilities, advocates, providers, and states in partnership with these CMS efforts have created opportunities that may not be reflected.
Despite the many creative and effective HCBS programs developed by states and the shift in Medicaid payments toward such services, several factors present unique challenges to states seeking to expand access to HCBS. These include the following:
•
•
•
As managed care organizations administer and coordinate contracted benefits, they are continually balancing the parallel goals of containing costs and facilitating the provision of needed services, which can impact the delivery of service on a daily basis. Under Medicaid regulations, plans can implement utilization criteria that influence service provision, such as prior authorization requirements or requiring the use of a particular drug or therapy before access to a more expensive treatment is authorized. However, the use of managed care should not negatively impact a beneficiary's access to covered services, as managed care plans must offer all services they are under contract to provide. In addition, services available under a managed care delivery system should be no less in amount, duration and scope as the services provided under a FFS payment system. Through managed care authorities, plans can also provide additional services not otherwise available in that state, either as a value-added service that the plan chooses to provide, or by offering a service in lieu of a covered service under the state plan if it is medically appropriate and cost effective (although use of the “in lieu of” authority does not relieve a state or managed care organization (MCO) from providing access to all state plan services).
Given the unique characteristics of LTSS, protections such as provider continuity and beneficiary education, were incorporated into the May 6, 2016 managed care final rule (81 FR 27498). Specific protections include requiring that a state establish a beneficiary support system that accounts for the unique needs of individuals receiving LTSS, person-centered planning processes to ensure medical and non-
•
Recently, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued two rules, one that took effect in October 2015 extending minimum wage and overtime protections to most home care workers, and the other taking effect in December 2016, which updated the salary threshold below which white collar salaried workers, including managers, are entitled to overtime pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Both of these rules are implementing necessary reforms, and both will require time, effort, and financial resources to ensure compliance.
From the beginning, the DOL has emphasized the importance of implementation in a manner that protects both workers and consumers. States have a number of options for coming into compliance with these regulations. For example, in response to the Home Care final rule (78 FR 60453), some states are planning to increase funding for home care programs such that workers receive overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a work week. Others are planning to limit overtime work but create exceptions processes so that certain consumers are permitted to receive care from a single home care worker in excess of the general cap on worker hours.
Actions taken by states to implement these regulations have real implications for beneficiaries and service providers. Some states anticipate challenges in being able to secure funding to accommodate overtime payments incurred in the delivery of HCBS by providers in response to the two DOL regulations, and are taking actions such as implementing caps on the number of hours worked by home care workers to avoid incurring overtime expenses. These caps can necessitate beneficiaries who require a significant number of hours of service needing to find additional workers. Many stakeholders, such as labor organizations and beneficiary advocates have expressed concerns that hard caps and low wages are likely to hamper recruitment and retention efforts to secure a consistent workforce.
We issued guidance
•
CMS created the National Direct Service Workforce (DSW) Resource Center in 2005 to respond to the shortage of workers who provide direct care and personal assistance to individuals who need LTSS. These workers include direct support professionals, personal care attendants, personal assistance providers, home care aides, home health aides, and others (described collectively in the remainder of this document as the home care workforce). The DSW Resource Center created a number of important resources designed to assist states in developing home care workforce capacity, as well as to improve recruitment and retention efforts associated with the home care workforce. These resources included an inventory and analysis of the various core competency sets used across and within LTSS sectors.
While the DSW Resource Center concluded in December 2014, important resources funded through this initiative are available at
On May 20, 2010, we issued a State Medicaid Director (SMD) letter to provide information on new tools to support community integration, as well as to remind states of existing tools articulated in past “
•
•
Historically, we have reviewed states' proposed waiver and state plan reimbursement methodologies to determine compliance with regulatory requirements and with the statutory requirement found in section 1902(a)(30)(A) that payments be “consistent with efficiency, economy, and quality of care and sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Based on provisions of the 2015 Access to Medicaid Covered Services final regulation, this review now includes a review of the state's determination that any proposed payment reductions for state plan services, including HCBS provided through the state plan, will still result in sufficient beneficiary access to providers. Our review also includes the state's analysis of any concerns expressed over the proposed reduction from affected stakeholders. However, we have not interpreted the statute and regulations to support an analysis of payment methodologies down to the level of wages paid to individual home care workers. For example, while we review how a state proposes to reimburse a provider agency for the provision of personal care services, this review does not extend to analyzing how the provider agency compensates home care workers and whether that rate is sufficient to cover wage costs. It also does not include a review of whether compensation of home care workers is sufficient to attract needed workers, a key component of which would be a review of how home care worker wages compare to the wages paid to workers in occupations that compete for workers with similar levels of education and training.
To assist us in determining how to advance access to HCBS for beneficiaries in both FFS and managed care and how to enhance the quality and integrity of HCBS provision under existing authorities, we are soliciting public input on the following general topics:
Although HCBS expenditures account for a majority of total spending for LTSS in Medicaid, we are interested in making additional progress in rebalancing the Medicaid long-term care
Section 1115 demonstrations give states broad authority to implement reforms in their Medicaid program, such as by waiving specific provisions of the Social Security Act, or by allowing states to cover services and/or populations not typically covered by Medicaid. In the context of HCBS delivery, an 1115 demonstration could provide interested states with the authority to offer a more streamlined continuum of LTSS, similar to the Pilot Comprehensive Long-Term Care State Plan Option legislative proposal referenced in Appendix B. We seek input on the state interest and feasibility of such an approach, along with the following comments and questions:
• We are interested in receiving comments on the following potential interpretation of current law. The term “nursing facility” is defined in section 1919(a) of the Act. Under this definition, a nursing facility must be primarily engaged in providing skilled care and rehabilitation to residents with medical necessity for those services. In contrast, nursing facilities provide health-related care and services, that is, those services that are not skilled nursing or rehabilitation services, “to individuals who . . . require care and services . . . which can be made available to them only through institutional facilities”. In other words, the statutory nursing facility service definition could provide a basis for states to offer the mandatory nursing facility benefit only to individuals eligible for nursing facility coverage whose assessed need cannot be met by HCBS. If the individual's needs can be met by HCBS, Medicaid reimbursement would not be available for health-related care and services provided in a nursing facility in those circumstances. Because this concept intersects with other requirements such as institutional eligibility rules and the choice of institution as an option for section 1915(c) waiver participants, the idea may best be implemented under the flexibility of a section 1115(a) of the Act demonstration authority.
• Are there particular flexibilities around Medicaid requirements for LTSS that states would be interested in using 1115 authority to support? How could 1115 authority be structured to streamline the provision of LTSS across authorities, while adhering to budget neutrality requirements?
• What types of eligibility flexibility and controls, including level of care and utilization, could be used to encourage access to HCBS?
• What types of benefit redesign (such as a package of benefits) would improve the provision of LTSS?
• What resource needs, including differences between urban and rural areas, and variations in providing services to different HCBS populations, would need to be taken into account to ensure access to HCBS?
As the number of beneficiaries receiving Medicaid HCBS has increased, so has the need to ensure that federal and state quality efforts are maintained and strengthened to ensure the provision of services in ways that improve health outcomes of beneficiaries. Toward that end, we made extensive revisions to the quality oversight structure of the 1915(c) HCBS waiver program, which culminated in guidance released in 2014.
As states increasingly turn to managed care to deliver LTSS including nursing home and HCBS to older adults and people with disabilities enrolled in Medicaid, we have sought additional approaches to quality and beneficiary protections, while also allowing state flexibility in program design and administration. As one example, the Medicaid managed care final rule specifically incorporated “managed” long-term services and supports, referred to as MLTSS, elements into several areas of CMS' quality measurement and improvement framework. States must have mechanisms for the identification of enrollees who need LTSS or enrollees with special health care needs, and managed care plans must have mechanisms to assess the quality and appropriateness of care furnished to beneficiaries enrolled in managed care and receiving LTSS, including an assessment of care between care settings and a comparison of services and supports received with those set forth in the enrolled beneficiary's treatment or service plan. Managed care plans must also participate in efforts by the state to prevent, detect, and remediate critical incidents that adversely impact enrollee health and welfare, and the state must identify standard performance measures, including performance measures relating to quality of life, rebalancing, and community integration activities for those beneficiaries receiving LTSS.
As we solicit ideas for the expansion and promotion of HCBS, it is critical that the infrastructure surrounding service provision be sufficiently robust to ensure that beneficiaries receive needed, quality services, while also ensuring the health and safety of those beneficiaries. Currently, there is an absence of a formal federal oversight framework for the provision of HCBS such as what exists for services provided in institutions such as nursing facilities and hospitals. Instead, CMS and the states partner to ensure the collection of data is sufficient to both articulate the experience of individuals receiving HCBS and to inform the actions to be taken when necessary to improve that experience. Therefore, we are soliciting feedback on the following:
• What is the appropriate role for CMS versus the states in ensuring quality of care for Medicaid beneficiaries receiving HCBS? How could CMS and states best monitor quality and beneficiary safety? What actions should CMS take when HCBS are not being delivered according to federal requirements? What evidence would be required to determine when CMS takes these actions?
• Should there be an oversight structure with conditions of participation in HCBS similar to that of institutions and home health agencies, in which state surveyors report survey findings directly to CMS?
• What can CMS do to support standardized performance measures for HCBS, including in Medicaid waivers and state plans?
• What other quality measurement activities could CMS undertake to strengthen the provision of HCBS across any Medicaid authority? What data, reporting and system resources would be necessary to support those activities?
• What other quality measurement activities should CMS require or do to support states and other stakeholders to strengthen the provision of quality HCBS across any Medicaid authorities?
Program integrity expectations apply to providers of HCBS as they do to all other Medicaid services and providers. Program integrity results in Medicaid paying the right provider for furnishing the right services to the right beneficiary at the right price. Without strong program integrity safeguards, HCBS funds are at risk of being misspent, beneficiaries in need of HCBS are at risk of receiving substandard quality of care that may result in beneficiary harm, and institutionalization may be used in situations where it would otherwise be unnecessary.
Personal care services (PCS), are a critical component of HCBS, and there is evidence of program integrity vulnerabilities in their provision. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) recently issued an Investigative Advisory
Given the nature of these services, focusing on activities of daily living (ADLs) such as eating, bathing, toileting, and transferring, and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) such as money management and meal preparation, community-based provider qualifications have tended to be less formal than care more focused on skilled nursing or licensed therapies. Many states have adopted personal care provider qualifications such as minimum age requirements, possession of a valid driver's license, and completion of training required by the state and specific training required by the beneficiary.
When evaluating how best to ensure the provision of quality person-centered services by a sufficient pool of qualified providers, we are weighing competing stakeholder viewpoints. As an example, standardized worker training requirements may be supported by entities focused on home care worker engagement and program integrity safeguards, but are generally not supported by disability rights organizations and self-advocates, who favor more flexible programs that base training requirements on individual beneficiary circumstances. We believe that ensuring both interests are included as part of the overall delivery of HCBS is important to successful delivery of high quality HCBS to Medicaid beneficiaries.
We are particularly interested in the operational feasibility for states of these recommendations and the implications for beneficiary choice and control. We also seek input into the feasibility and implications in each of two different service delivery models: Agency-directed PCS (including “agency with choice” models in which the provider agency and the beneficiary are co-employers of the PCS attendant) and self-directed PCS. HCBS have a long history of utilizing consumer-directed/self-directed models of service delivery, a facilitation of beneficiary choice and control that CMS supports. These include models through which a range of services and supports are planned, budgeted, and directly controlled by an individual (with the help of representatives, if desired) based on the individual's needs and preferences that maximize independence and the ability to live in the setting of the individual's choice. Even in more traditional models of HCBS delivery, in which agencies are utilized, there has been movement over time to incorporate beneficiary expectations of participating in training and determining the qualifications of workers that are most relevant to individual needs and preferences.
The use of minimum qualifications and screening and enrollment requirements may create administrative implications, increase costs and impact beneficiary choice and control. On the other hand, a lack of adequate program integrity safeguards could pose risk to both Medicaid beneficiaries and successful stewardship of Federal and state funds. The successful delivery of PCS to Medicaid beneficiaries must ensure that both individual needs and preferences are met and that the program has adequate safeguards in place. To better ensure the successful delivery of PCS, we are soliciting feedback on the following:
• What are the benefits and consequences of implementing standard federal requirements for personal care workers in agency-directed and/or self-directed models of care?
• What would standardized qualifications look like in terms of the following:
• Should standardization include the expectation that certain circumstances require more than the standard, or different standards?
• What role could state-administered home care worker registries play in facilitating access to HCBS? What issues should be addressed in the creation of home care worker registries?
• What issues should be considered in requiring criminal background checks? In the states that are utilizing fingerprinting and background checks already, what lessons can be learned from implementation and experience with these approaches?
• What role can home care worker organizations play in providing training to support implementation of federal qualification standards? What regulatory or policy provisions would either support, or inadvertently disadvantage, home care worker organizations?
• Should states be required to enroll or register all PCS attendants and assign them unique numbers for purposes of tracking claims?
• What is the feasibility for state Medicaid programs of including home care worker identity on claims submitted for Medicaid reimbursement?
• What other program integrity safeguards should be put in place, either as an alternative to, or in addition to, the controls recommended by OIG, for agency-directed PCS? For self-directed PCS?
• Are the program integrity safeguards that are appropriate for agency-directed personal care services also appropriate for self-directed personal care services?
• How can program integrity safeguards be developed and implemented to support key HCBS programmatic objectives such as choice and self-direction?
To determine the specific steps that we could take to strengthen the HCBS home care workforce, we are soliciting feedback on the implications of establishing requirements, standards or procedures to ensure rates paid to providers are sufficient to attract enough providers to meet service needs of beneficiaries and that wages supported by those rates are sufficient to attract enough qualified home care workers.
As indicated previously, and as described in the Informational Bulletin dated August 3, 2016,
• What if any actions could CMS take to better ensure adequate beneficiary access to safe HCBS services provided by qualified individuals, across both urban and rural locations and across disparate populations?
• What are positive and negative consequences of such actions, including the implications under the Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws, if state ratesetting approaches result in specified wages at an individual worker level?
• Should CMS expand its ratesetting approval authority to support provider infrastructure and the HCBS workforce?
• What effect would an increase in payment rates necessitated by a CMS rate review process that focuses on home care worker wages have on funded slots or services, particularly given budget limitations and cost neutrality requirements inherent in many Medicaid authorities?
• How could CMS determine whether an increase in home care worker wages results in an increase in the quality of services provided and an increase in the size of the workforce such that it will be more likely to meet future industry needs?
• What sources of information, including data from the DOL, would be most useful to CMS in making sure that reimbursement rates appropriately take into consideration wages and benefits for home care workers? How would CMS best use these sources?
• What role could state-administered home care worker registries play in facilitating access to HCBS? What issues should be addressed in the creation of home care worker registries?
• What other actions could CMS consider to strengthen the home care workforce such as assessing training needs, developing career ladders, etc.?
This request for information constitutes a general solicitation of public comments as discussed in the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act at 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4). Therefore, this request for information does not impose information collection requirements, that is: Reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
Performance measures are used across the healthcare delivery system and across payers to improve outcomes, experience of care, population health, and health care affordability through improvement, with the goal of improving processes and outcomes. In clinical and behavioral health care, measurement has been associated with improvements in providers' use of evidence-based strategies and health outcomes. However, there is no national quality measure set for HCBS.
Quality measures are tools that help evaluate or quantify healthcare processes, outcomes, individual perceptions/experiences, and organizational structure and/or systems that are associated with the ability to provide high-quality health care and/or that relate to one or more quality goals for health care. These goals include: Effective, safe, efficient, person-centered, equitable, and timely care. CMS uses quality measures in its quality improvement, public reporting, and pay-for-reporting programs for specific healthcare providers.
• CMS is working on developing quality measures and maintenance programs serving individuals who are enrolled in both Medicare and Medicaid, as well as individuals only enrolled in Medicaid who use HCBS as part of the work in the IAP. The objectives of this project are to identify and prioritize measures and measure concepts, develop and refine measure specifications for priority measures, conduct field testing to evaluate measure importance, feasibility, usability, and scientific validity and reliability, submit validated, reliable measures to the National Quality Forum (NQF) for endorsement, and assist CMS with an implementation strategy. Eight measures in development apply to beneficiaries enrolled in managed long-term services and supports programs, and one measure, for community integration is specific to HCBS.
• CMS has developed a standardized system for developing and maintaining the quality measures used in its various accountability initiatives and programs. Known as the Measures Management System (MMS), measure developers (or contractors) should follow this core set of business
• The National Quality Forum's (NQF) Measures Application Partnership (MAP) is a multi-stakeholder public/private partnership that guides HHS on the selection of performance measures for Federal health programs. Its Dual Eligible Beneficiaries Workgroup has identified opportunities for improvement in measurement areas including quality of life, screening and assessment, structural measures, mental health and substance use, and care coordination. The MAP Workgroup noted significant gaps in the availability of measures for HCBS, and in a final report to HHS identified potential measures worthy of attention.
• HCBS are a focus of HHS's Multiple Chronic Conditions Strategic Framework.
• The National Alzheimer's Plan recommends the development of dementia quality measures across care settings.
• Section 6086(b) of Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, “Quality of Care Measures,” directed HHS's Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop measures of program performance, client functioning, and client satisfaction with HCBS under Medicaid; assess the quality of Medicaid HCBS outcomes and those of the overall system, and disseminate information on best practices.
• CMS sponsored development of a HCBS taxonomy
• CMS's Money Follows the Person demonstration program developed a quality of life survey (QoL) for persons transitioning from institutional to community settings which provided valuable insight into the use of an experience of care survey. Through the CMS Testing Experience and Functional Tools (TEFT) demonstration grant, the HCBS Experience of Care Survey was tested and recently received the CAHPS® trademark, and was recommended for endorsement by NQF's Person and Family Centered Care Committee.
• CMS's TEFT initiative is working on a HCBS Functional Assessment Standardized Items (FASI), based on the HCBS CARE tool, and development of standards for electronic and personal health records, or “eLTss Plan.”
• The Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation (IMPACT) Act requires reporting of quality measures in Skilled Nursing Facilities, Home Health, and across other settings and requires standardized assessment data, data on quality measures, interoperability, and person-centered care.
• The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) includes a quality assessment and improvement strategy for Medicare managed care, and the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) offers financial incentives for eligible professionals to provide care that advances the goals of a healthier system.
• The Affordable Care Act included a requirement for CMS to establish voluntary care sets for adult and child quality measures.
• HHS's Administration for Community Living's National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) is presently implementing a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center grant to develop, test, and gain NQF approval for HCBS quality measures.
• Under certain Medicaid statutory authorities states must develop and integrate a continuous quality assurance, monitoring, and improvement strategy for HCBS programs.
• The Government Accountability Office has issued a series of reviews of HCBS provided through the Medicaid program since 1982, the year after HCBS were first added to Medicaid as an optional benefit, and many address quality issues.
• There are synergies in HCBS quality in CMS's State Innovation Models Initiative in the states that have received Model Testing Awards,
This 8-year pilot program would create a comprehensive long-term care state plan option for up to 5 states. Participating states would be authorized to provide equal access to home and community-based care and nursing facility care. The Secretary would have the discretion to make these pilots permanent at the end of the 8 years. This proposal works to end the institutional bias in long-term care and simplify state administration.
This proposal provides states with the option to offer categorical Medicaid eligibility to individuals who would be eligible under the state plan if they were in a nursing facility and who meet the coverage requirements for, and will receive, 1915(k) services (“Community First Choice” services). Under the current statutory framework, states have the option to extend full Medicaid coverage to individuals who are generally not otherwise eligible for Medicaid but who meet the coverage criteria for a 1915(c) waiver or 1915(i) benefit available under the state Medicaid program. A similar option does not exist for the 1915(k) benefit. This proposal provides an eligibility pathway into Medicaid for individuals otherwise eligible for the 1915(k)
This proposal increases states' flexibility in expanding access to home and community-based services under section 1915(i) of the Social Security Act. Currently, an individual who meets the coverage and targeting criteria for a 1915(i) benefit available under his or her state's Medicaid program but whose income is above 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL) may only qualify for Medicaid if the individual also meets the coverage and targeting criteria for a 1915(c) waiver approved as part of the state's Medicaid program. This proposal removes this limitation, which we anticipate will reduce the administrative burden on states and increase access to home and community-based services for the elderly and individuals with disabilities.
This proposal provides states with the option to offer a larger package of Medicaid services to medically needy individuals who access home and community-based services through the state plan option under section 1915(i) of the Social Security Act. Currently, individuals who qualify as medically needy based on the unique financial deeming rules many states use in providing 1915(i) coverage may only receive 1915(i) services, instead of the other services available to medically needy individuals under the state's plan. This option will provide states with more opportunities to support the comprehensive health care needs of medically needy individuals who are eligible for 1915(i) services.
This proposal provides states with additional tools to manage children's mental health care service delivery systems by expanding the non-institutional options available to these Medicaid beneficiaries. By adding psychiatric residential treatment facilities to the list of qualified inpatient facilities in 1915(c), this proposal provides access to home and community-based waiver services for children and youth in Medicaid who are currently receiving services in these settings and/or meet this institutional level of care. Without this change to provisions in the Social Security Act, children and youth who meet this institutional level of care do not have the choice to receive home and community-based waiver services and can only receive Medicaid-covered services for the type of care they need in an institutional setting where residents are eligible for Medicaid. This proposal builds upon findings from the 5 year Community Alternatives to Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities Demonstration Grant Program authorized in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that showed improved overall outcomes in mental health and social support for participants with average cost savings of $36,500 to $40,000 per year per participant.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Ozark-Ouachita Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site:
The meeting will be held December 8, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. (CST). In the event of no quorum or other unavoidable circumstances, alternate dates for the meeting are December 9, December 13, and December 14, 2016.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held at Janet Huckabee Arkansas River Valley Nature Center, 8300 Wells Lake Road, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Caroline Mitchell, Committee Coordinator, by phone at 501-321-5318 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is:
1. To review Title II proposals.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by November 30, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Caroline Mitchell, Committee Coordinator, PO Box 1270, Hot Springs, Arkansas, or via facsimile to 501-321-5399.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This Notice announces public comment for proposed rule changes for the RBIP. Notice of a public webinar on the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012; TITLE VI—RURAL DEVELOPMENT; Subtitle A—Reorganization of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act; CHAPTER 2—RURAL BUSINESS AND COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT; Sec. 3602. Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP).
A webinar will be held Thursday, November 17, 2016. To discuss proposed rule changes. Registration will start at 11:45 a.m.; the program will begin at 12:00 p.m. and conclude by 1:45 p.m. Eastern Time.
The RBIP regulation Specialty Programs Division (see 7 CFR part 4290) is currently in the process of drafting several revisions within the rule. These rule changes will allow a more effective program for investing in rural areas. We are also looking to align the provision of the rule with other Rural Business-Cooperative service programs. We are seeking comments on potential rule changes from the public.
David Chesnick, Agricultural Economist, USDA, Rural Development, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone (202) 690-0433.
To view audio and web conferencing, find hyperlink below.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the Port of South Louisiana, grantee of FTZ 124, requesting subzone status for the facility of Danos & Curole Marine Contractor's, LLC, located in Morgan City, Louisiana. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 3, 2016.
The proposed subzone (367.5 acres) is located at 2547 Highway 66 South in Morgan City. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
On July 6, 2016, the KOM Foreign Trade Zone Authority, grantee of FTZ 189, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Southern Lithoplate, Inc., within Site 10, in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by CODEZOL, C.D., grantee of FTZ 163, requesting subzone status for the facility of AxisCare Health Logistics, Inc., located in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 4, 2016.
The proposed subzone (7.593 acres) is located at PR #2 Km. 19.5 in Toa Baja. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 163. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Camille Evans of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Camille Evans at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by The Greater Dayton Foreign-Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 100, requesting expanded subzone status for the facilities of Thor Industries, Inc. (Thor), located in Jackson Center, Ohio. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on November 1, 2016.
Subzone 100D consists of the following site:
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is December 19, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to January 3, 2017.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these sunset reviews, the Department of Commerce (the Department) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on stainless steel plate in coils (SSPC) from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Reviews” section of this notice.
Effective November 9, 2016.
Victoria Cho or Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2312 or (202) 482-3813, respectively.
On July 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the third sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
On July 31, 2016, we received complete substantive responses for each review from the domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). We received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties with respect to any of the orders covered by these sunset reviews, nor was a hearing requested. 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 is conducting expedited (120-day) sunset reviews of these orders.
The merchandise covered by the orders consists of stainless steel plate in coils, 254 mm or over in width and 4.75 mm or more in thickness, and annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. These imports are currently classified under subheadings 7219 and 7220 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written product description remains dispositive.
All issues raised in these reviews, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the orders were revoked, are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum. 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
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1),(2) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on SSPC from Belgium, South Africa, and Taiwan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping up to the following weighted-average margin percentages:
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an 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. Timely 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
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before January 9, 2017.
Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to David Ritchie, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Room 20001, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, (or via the Internet at
The United States and the European Union (EU) share the goal of enhancing privacy protection for their citizens, but take different approaches to protecting personal data. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (Privacy Shield) in consultation with the European Commission, as well as with industry and other stakeholders, to provide organizations in the United States with a reliable mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union while ensuring the protection of the data as required by EU law.
On July 12, 2016, the European Commission deemed the Privacy Shield Framework adequate to enable data transfers under EU law, and the DOC began accepting self-certification submissions from organizations on August 1, 2016. More information on the Privacy Shield is available at:
The DOC has issued the Privacy Shield Principles under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). ITA administers and supervises the Privacy Shield, including by maintaining and making publicly available an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC. U.S. organizations submit information to ITA to self-certify their compliance with Privacy Shield.
U.S. organizations considering self-certifying to the Privacy Shield should review the Privacy Shield Framework. In summary, in order to enter the Privacy Shield, an organization must (a) be subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Department of Transportation, or another statutory body that will effectively ensure compliance with the Principles; (b) publicly declare its commitment to comply with the Principles; (c) publicly disclose its privacy policies in line with the Principles; and (d) fully implement them.
Self-certification to the DOC is voluntary; however, an organization's failure to comply with the Principles after its self-certification is enforceable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts in or affecting commerce (15 U.S.C. 45(a)) or other laws or regulations prohibiting such acts.
In order to rely on the Privacy Shield for transfers of personal data from the EU, an organization must self-certify its adherence to the Principles to the DOC, be placed by the ITA on the Privacy Shield List, and remain on the Privacy Shield List. To self-certify for the Privacy Shield, an organization must provide to the DOC a self-certification submission that contains the information specified in the Privacy Shield Principles. The Privacy Shield self-certification form, the proposed information collection, would be the means by which an organization would provide the relevant information to ITA.
The Privacy Shield self-certification is submitted electronically by organizations through the DOC's Privacy Shield Web site (
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection;
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (“the Department”) preliminarily determines that ammonium sulfate from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) is, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.
Effective November 9, 2016.
Maliha Khan or Thomas Martin, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0892 or (202) 482-3936 respectively.
On May 25, 2016, PCI Nitrogen, LLC, filed a petition with the Department of Commerce alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of certain ammonium sulfate from the PRC. The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on June 22, 2016.
The POI is October 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016. This period corresponds to the two most recent fiscal quarters prior to the month of the filing of the petition, May 2016.
The product covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate from the PRC. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation,
In accordance with the
The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. For purposes of this preliminary LTFV determination, the Department continues to treat the PRC as a non-market economy country within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act. Because none of the potential respondents in this investigation submitted separate rate applications, they are considered to be part of the PRC-wide entity. Further, the PRC-wide entity did not provide necessary quantity-and-value (“Q&V”) data the Department requested. Therefore, in making this preliminary determination and in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, because respondents failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of their ability to respond to the Department's requests for information, we are drawing an adverse inference in selecting a rate from among the facts otherwise available (“AFA”) in determining the dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
In selecting an AFA rate, the Department selects a rate that is sufficiently adverse to ensure that the uncooperative party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had fully cooperated. In an investigation, the Department's practice with respect to the assignment of an AFA rate is to select the higher of (1) the highest dumping margin alleged in the petition or (2) the highest calculated dumping margin of any respondent in the investigation.
In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of ammonium sulfate from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the
We will also instruct CBP, pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), to require for all PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration, and all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration, the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity, 493.46 percent.
The Department ordinarily discloses the calculations performed in the investigation to interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), however, in this proceeding there are no calculations to disclose. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for
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, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using 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.
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(I) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.205(c).
The merchandise covered by this investigation is ammonium sulfate in all physical forms, with or without additives such as anti-caking agents. Ammonium sulfate, which may also be spelled as ammonium sulphate, has the chemical formula (NH
The scope includes ammonium sulfate that is combined with other products, including by, for example, blending (
Ammonium sulfate that has been combined with other products is included within the scope regardless of whether the combining occurs in countries other than China.
Ammonium sulfate that is otherwise subject to this investigation is not excluded when commingled (
The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number for ammonium sulfate is 7783-20-2.
The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 3102.21.0000. Although this HTSUS subheading and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on heavy forged hand tools, finished or unfinished, with or without handles (“HFHTs”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.
Effective October 31, 2016.
Paul Walker, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202.482.0413.
On February 19, 1991, the Department published the notice of the antidumping duty order on HFHTs from the PRC.
The merchandise covered by these orders are hand tools comprising the following classes or kinds of merchandise: (1) Hammers and sledges with heads over 1.5 kg (3.33 pounds); (2) bars over 18 inches in length, track tools and wedges; (3) picks and mattocks; and (4) axes, adzes and similar hewing tools. Subject hand tools are manufactured through a hot forge operation in which steel is sheared to required length, heated to forging temperature, and formed to final shape on forging equipment using dies specific to the desired product shape and size. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 8205.20.60, 8205.59.30, 8201.30.00, and 8201.40.60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this proceeding, which is contained in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, is dispositive.
A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review, including the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in the event of revocation of the
Pursuant to section 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only 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. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.218, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with September anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Effective November 9, 2016.
Brenda E. Waters, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
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 September 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.
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
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
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” (
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.
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 under a test arising from the
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
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
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.
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 September 30, 2017.
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, consistent with
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.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published
On April 10, 2013, the Department published
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings:
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).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that none of the mandatory respondents in this review qualify for a separate rate and are, therefore, considered part of the Vietnam-Wide Entity for their exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR) February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise during the POR. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Effective November 9, 2016.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
On April 7, 2016, the Department initiated the eleventh administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (
The merchandise subject to the Order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. Although the HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written product description, available in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, remains dispositive.
Based on our analysis of CBP information and information provided by a number of companies, we preliminarily determine that 13 companies
The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (Act). Because the mandatory respondents in this administrative review have not responded to all portions of the NME questionnaire, we preliminarily determine that they are ineligible for a separate rate and are part of the Vietnam-Wide entity, subject to the Vietnam-Wide entity rate of 25.76 percent.
For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
The Department finds that the two mandatory respondents and 51 additional companies for which a review was requested have not established eligibility for a separate rate and are considered to be part of the Vietnam-Wide entity for these preliminary results.
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when the Department limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, the Department looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually-examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
However, for these preliminary results, we have not calculated any individual rates or assigned a rate based on facts available. Therefore, consistent
The
Normally, The Department will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties in this review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary results in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the publication of these preliminary results, and rebuttal comments within five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.
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 within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues parties intend to discuss. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Should the final results of this administrative review remain unchanged from these preliminary results, the following cash deposit
This notice also 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 review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Notice.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, owns two patents related to controlled liposome formation using microfluidic channels: U.S. Patent
For further information about these patented inventions or other licensing and partnership opportunities, please contact Honeyeh Zube, CRADA and License Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to
NIST's Patent 9,198,645, titled “Controlled Vesicle Self-Assembly in Continuous Two Phase Flow Microfluidic Channels” (NIST Docket 04-003) claims novel methods for the formation of liposomes that encapsulate reagents in a continuous two-phase flow microfluidic network with precision control of size, for example, from 100 nm to 300 nm, by manipulation of liquid flow rates are described. By creating a solvent-aqueous interfacial region in a microfluidic format that is homogenous and controllable on the length scale of a liposome, fine control of liposome size and polydispersity can be achieved.
NIST's Patent 8,715,591, title “Microfluidic Apparatus to Control Liposome Formation,” (NIST Docket 09-017) is available for license and claims the apparatus and method of using a microfluidic device that controls the amount of delivery compound incorporated in a liposome on a nanometer size scale using laminar flow and miscible fluids, thereby increasing loading efficiency. The patent was filed on Apr. 19, 2010 and was issued on May 6, 2014. The invention was first published in Jahn,
The liposomes formed by the self-assembly process are characterized using asymmetric flow field-flow fractionation combined with quasi-elastic light scattering and multiangle laser-light scattering. The vesicle size and size distribution are tunable over a mean diameter from 50 to 150 nm by adjusting the ratio of the alcohol-to-aqueous volumetric flow rate. Liposome formation depends more strongly on the focused alcohol stream width and its diffusive mixing with the aqueous stream than on the sheer forces at the solvent-buffer interface. The inventions have application in drug delivery, gene therapy, and potential application for on-demand liposome-mediated delivery of point-of-care therapeutics. The inventions can obviate the need for post-processing in drug manufacturing.
NIST is authorized to license its rights in these inventions to organizations on a non-exclusive or exclusive basis for specified fields of use. The rights to these patents are available for exclusive or non-exclusive licensing by the authority granted to the NIST under 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. NIST researchers are interested in potential collaborations with licensees to bring this invention to practical application and to promote innovation, enhance economic security and improve quality of life.
The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
In certain sea and weather conditions, a large ship may lose maneuverability at slow speeds. Therefore, under such conditions a ship, at the captain's discretion, may opt not to abide by the speed restrictions. If she/he chooses this option, she/he is required to make an entry into the ship's log, providing such information as: the reasons for the deviation, the speed at which the vessel is operated, the area, and the time and duration of such deviation.
This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 9, 2016.
Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 03F09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The purpose of this notice is to initiate a 45-day scoping process for preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) proposed Thousand Palms Flood Control Project.
Submit comments concerning this notice on or before December 19, 2016. A public scoping meeting will be held on December 6, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. (PST).
The scoping meeting location is: Thousand Palms Community Center, 31-189 Roberts Road, Thousand Palms, CA 92276.
Mail written comments concerning this notice to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office, ATIN: SPL-2014-00238-RJV, 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Comment letters should include the commenter's physical mailing address, the project title and the Corps file number in the subject line.
Michelle Lynch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Regulatory Division, Carlsbad Field Office, ATTN: SPL-2014-00238-RJV, 5900 La Place Court, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008, (760) 602-4850,
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Corps is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to any permit action. The Corps may ultimately make a determination to permit or deny the proposed project or a modified version of the proposed project. The primary Federal concerns are the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States.
1. Project Description. CVWD is proposing to construct a flood control project that is linear in nature, consists of four reaches, and is generally located on the northern and eastern margins of the community of Thousand Palms. Components of the project include levees, channels, culverts, and a sediment basin. The levees and channels would be comprised of compacted native soil with a layer of soil cement to protect the structures from erosion. Reach 1 is comprised of a 2.4 mile long levee with varying height from 5 to 14 feet, a minimum 12-foot access (patrol) road on the top of the levee, as well as an unpaved embankment access road on the downstream (west side) of the levee for operations and maintenance (O&M) purposes. Reach 2 is comprised of a 0.33 mile long levee with a height of approximately 5 feet, a minimum 12-foot access (patrol) road on the top of the levee, as well as an unpaved embankment access road on the downstream (west side) of the levee for O&M purposes and would be positioned in the mid-alluvial fan area just northeast of an existing electrical substation, to protect the substation and adjacent development. Reach 3 is comprised of a 1.23 mile long levee, an access road, and a 1.01 mile channel. The levee height would vary from 5 to 14 feet and would initiate approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the downstream end of Reach 2, roughly 1,000 feet south of Ramon Road. The channel would divert flows from Levee 3 towards the existing stormwater conveyance system at the Classic Club Golf Course. Reach 4 is comprised of an approximately two-mile long channel that would divert stormwater flows from the southeast end of the Classic Club Golf Course and continue south then east, adjacent to the re-aligned Avenue 38, and would terminate at Washington Street with construction of a conveyance system to direct stormwater flows into existing stormwater conveyance facilities in the Del Webb/Sun City development.
2. Issues. Potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project may include: Aesthetics/visual impacts, air quality emissions, biological resource impacts, noise, traffic and transportation, and
3. Alternatives. The Draft EIS will include a co-equal analysis of several alternatives. Project alternatives will be further developed during this scoping process. Additional alternatives that may be developed during scoping will also be considered in the Draft EIS.
4. Scoping. The Corps and CVWD will jointly conduct a public scoping meeting to receive public comment regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft EIS. Participation by Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons is encouraged.
5. The Draft EIS is expected to be available for public review and comment 6 to 12 months after the scoping meeting, and a public meeting may be held after its publication.
Water Power Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Request for information (RFI).
The Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), within the Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing this request for information (RFI) to invite input from the public regarding challenges and opportunities associated with hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches. Through this RFI, the WPTO is also seeking input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support research and development of advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects of new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States.
Responses must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on Friday, December 16, 2016.
Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to
Questions may be directed to: Rajesh Dham, Water Power Technologies Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: (202) 287-6675, Email:
Through its HydroNEXT initiative, WPTO's Hydropower Program (the Program) invests in the development of innovative technologies that lower cost, improve performance, and promote environmental stewardship of hydropower development across three resource classes:
Under a Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) DE-FOA-0001455 titled, “Innovative Technologies to Advance Non-Powered Dam and Pumped Storage Hydropower Development,” the Program made federal funding available to research and develop innovative solutions for NPD and PSH development. In FY 2017, the Program seeks to overcome challenges associated with furthering the development of hydropower in new stream-reaches.
Development of hydropower in new stream-reaches refers to new projects in stream segments and waterways that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities. New stream-reach development projects are subject to more scrutiny than projects for other hydropower resources (
To realize sustainable and responsible hydropower development and to protect the integrity of existing streams, the Program is seeking information regarding transformative and/or innovative hydropower technologies that reduce or eliminate environmental concerns and are financially viable.
The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders on issues related to development of hydropower in new stream-reaches. EERE is specifically interested in information on the costs/benefits and environmental effects associated with such development, and possible solutions to address the related challenges. EERE is also seeking input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support research and development of advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects of new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States. This is solely a request for information and not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA); EERE is not accepting applications.
To accelerate the deployment of sustainable and responsible hydropower in new stream-reaches while protecting their social and environmental value, EERE is seeking input on the main challenges and potential opportunities for developing this resource.
Specifically, we welcome feedback on the following questions:
(1) How can advances in technology more readily address environmental challenges associated with hydropower development in undeveloped streams?
(2) What are the technical challenges associated with new stream-reach
(3) How can modularization of power train and civil works components affect project costs? How can standardized equipment build familiarity and assist with regulatory review of proposed new stream-reach development projects?
(4) With recent advancements in additive manufacturing, it has become increasingly easy to embed sensors and other smart technology into equipment. How can this advancement be used to build smarter machines and change the way stakeholders address environmental concerns?
(5) What other challenges is the hydropower community facing with regards to new stream-reach development? How can DOE help to address those challenges?
The DOE's 2016
We are seeking input on the following questions related to this issue:
(1) What type of transformative innovations (either in power train components or plant system designs) could hold the key to reducing or avoiding environmental effects typically associated with development of new stream-reaches?
(2) How can Federal investments in research and development help increase benefits and reduce costs for new stream-reach development? What areas of investment would be most impactful?
(3) Are other industries using technologies, equipment, or techniques that could be applied to hydropower to increase benefits and/or reduce new stream-reach development project costs, timelines, and environmental effects? Please provide examples.
EERE seeks input on the focus and structure of a potential funding opportunity to support the development of environmentally-sustainable hydropower development in new stream-reaches. EERE welcomes feedback on the approach outlined below.
The objective of this potential research is to develop advanced and/or non-traditional transformative hydropower technologies and project designs capable of avoiding or minimizing environmental and social effects for new cost-competitive hydropower development in undeveloped stream-reaches of the United States. Potential projects should be capable of reducing the environmental and social effects of civil works and other disturbances resulting from the development of hydropower in undeveloped stream-reaches. Of particular interest are projects that do not require the use of a dam to create the head differential necessary to generate hydropower.
Following a two-phase process, potential researchers should be able to demonstrate—through research, analysis, and engineering design—that the proposed systems can meet the following metrics:
Research the available hydropower potential and develop innovative and transformative design strategies that include ways to increase head for cost-competitive and environmentally sustainable hydropower development. Such designs should include the following features:
• Transformative diversionary structures without the use of a solid dam: examples include side intakes or side-channel intakes and headrace canals, and trench weirs with suitable water conveyance systems
• Alternative water conveyance systems using innovative technologies (such as advanced tunneling methods, intakes, alternative pipe materials and manufacturing, and tailrace systems) to increase power density and reduce component and system costs
• Use of low impact, modular, and scalable hydropower technologies as applicable to achieve cost reductions
Researchers should consider multipurpose use of the hydropower facility that may help to reduce the cost allocation to hydropower development.
Further, awardees will perform desktop studies using available data to identify probable locations on undeveloped stream-reaches for potential application of their innovative/transformational design strategies. These studies will help to identify the most favorable sites and inform reconnaissance and feasibility studies in Phase 2.
With respect to the most favorable sites identified in Phase I, researchers should perform: (A) Reconnaissance studies, and (B) Feasibility studies.
Reconnaissance studies are performed with the aim of determining if further feasibility studies are warranted. These studies should:
Feasibility studies are performed with the aim of determining if an investment commitment should be made without actual ground disturbance and the requirement of permit(s). These studies will include the following activities:
Researchers should perform reconnaissance studies for at least six selected locations for project development, with the aim of performing feasibility studies on the three most promising sites. We anticipate that DOE would make a Go/No-Go decision after Phase 1 based on the environmental performance, costs, and applicability of the proposed technology or design strategy.
EERE welcomes input on the approach outlined. Specifically, we welcome feedback on the following questions:
(1) Is the focus outlined above the optimal approach for supporting sustainable development of hydropower in undeveloped streams? If not, what improvements would you suggest?
(2) Please share comments on other items not considered here that you believe EERE should address as it develops a strategy to advance new stream-reach development.
DOE invites all interested parties to submit responses by not later than 5:00 p.m. (ET) on December 16, 2016. Responses to this RFI must be submitted electronically to
Respondents are requested to provide the following information at the start of their response to this RFI:
• Company/institution name;
• Company/institution contact;
• Contact's address, phone number, and email address.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n.
o.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC) regulations, Commission staff has prepared this draft General Conformity Determination (GCD) for the Atlantic Sunrise Project (Project) to assess the potential air quality impacts associated with the construction of natural gas transmission facilities proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company, LLC (Transco).
The FERC staff concludes that the Project would achieve conformity in Pennsylvania through the transfer of Emission Reduction Credits. FERC staff will issue a final GCD to address any changes necessary and respond to comments.
The Project would involve the construction and operation of about 199.4 miles of pipeline facilities and appurtenant aboveground facilities, including:
• 185.9 miles of new natural gas pipeline in Columbia, Lancaster, Lebanon, Luzerne, Northumberland, Schuylkill, Susquehanna, and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (58.7 miles of 30-inch-diameter and 127.3 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);
• 11.0 miles of new pipeline looping in Clinton and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (2.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter and 8.5 miles of 42-inch-diameter pipeline);
• 2.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in Prince William County, Virginia;
• two new compressor stations in Columbia and Wyoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 610 and 605);
• additional compression and related modifications to two existing compressor stations in Columbia and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania (Compressor Stations 517 and 520) and one in Howard County, Maryland (Compressor Station 190);
• other modifications would be taking place at Compressor Stations 145, 150, 155, 160, 170, 185, and 190 across Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia;
• two new meter stations and three new regulator stations would be constructed and operated in Pennsylvania. There would also be modifications at an existing meter station, and the construction and operation of additional ancillary facilities would occur in Pennsylvania; and
• in North Carolina and South Carolina, supplemental odorization, odor detection, and/or odor masking/deodorization equipment would be installed at 56 meter stations, regulator stations, and ancillary facilities.
In addition, the full draft GCD is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the draft GCD may do so. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to issuance of the final GCD, it is important that we receive your comments in Washington, DC, on or before December 5, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the docket number (CP15-138-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) Another way to file your comments electronically is by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
For further information, contact Eric Tomasi by telephone at 202-502-8097 or by email at
Take notice that during the month of October 2016, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a).
In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes (NOPR), the Commission proposed to revise the Commission's regulations to collect certain data for analytics and surveillance purposes from market-based rate (MBR) sellers and entities trading virtual products or holding financial transmission rights and to change certain aspects of the substance and format of information submitted for MBR purposes.
This notice announces a second technical workshop that will focus on the submittal process. The purpose of this technical workshop is to allow for a dialogue between staff and the public regarding the technical aspects of the submission process. Staff will present case studies drawn from the characteristics of existing entities expected to submit data under the rule. The case studies will include a discussion of (1) the steps the user would follow to submit data to the relational database; (2) the process of data review and validation once the data is received by the Commission; and (3) the notifications a user would receive as the data makes its way through the Commission data validation and receipt process. Staff will also provide a high-level update on proposed technical refinements to the data dictionary based on prior workshop and additional outreach. The agenda for the workshop is attached.
All interested parties are invited to attend. The workshop will be held in Washington, DC on December 7, 2016 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at FERC headquarters in the Commission Meeting Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. For those unable to attend in person, access to the workshop sessions will be available by webcast.
Due to the detailed, substantive nature of the subject matter, parties interested in actively participating in the discussion are encouraged to attend in person. All interested parties (whether attending in person or via webcast) are asked to register online at
Those who would like to participate in the discussion by telephone during the workshop should send a request for a telephone line to
Commission workshops are accessible under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please send an email to
For additional information, please contact David Pierce of FERC's Office of Enforcement at (202) 502-6454 or send an email to
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the Abandonment and Capacity Restoration Project (ACRP or Project), proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (TGP) in the above-referenced docket. Tennessee requests authorization and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to sections 7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, modify, and operate natural gas pipeline facilities in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. The purpose of the Project is to disconnect and abandon pipeline segments from interstate natural gas service and construct and operate new natural gas infrastructure as a replacement to maintain service to existing customers. Following abandonment, TGP intends to sell the pipeline to Utica Marcellus Texas Pipeline LLC, an affiliate of TGP, for transportation of natural gas liquids.
The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the ACRP in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction, modification, and operation of the following facilities associated with the Project:
• Abandonment in place of about 964 miles of pipeline between Columbiana County, Ohio, and Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana;
• disconnects of the abandoned pipeline and directly associated equipment at 14 existing compressor stations; abandonment in place of 82 existing mainline valves; and 125 sites where taps or crossover/connector lines would be disconnected, abandoned, relocated, or removed;
• construction of 12 short segments of new pipeline to reconnect customer taps to TGP's other existing pipelines totaling 5.3 miles of new pipeline (between 2 and 16 inches in diameter) in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi;
• construction of four new compressor stations in Jackson, Morgan, Tuscarawas, and Mahoning Counties, Ohio;
• modification of existing Compressor Station 110 in Rowan County, Kentucky and additional modification of Compressor Station 875 (approved as part of the Broad Run Expansion Project, CP15-77) in Madison County, Kentucky;
• construction of 7.7 miles of new 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Carter and Lewis Counties, Kentucky; and
• construction of about 1.0 mile of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacement in Washington County, Mississippi, and 1.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline replacements in six sections in Madison County, Kentucky.
The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers; and libraries in the project area. Paper copy versions of the EA were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (
Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that the FERC receives your comments on or before December 2, 2016.
For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket number (CP15-88-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (
(2) You can also file your comments electronically using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations Part 385.214).
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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:
Take notice that on October 28, 2016, City of Vernon, California submitted its tariff filing: Filing 2017 Transmission Revenue Requirement and Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment, to be effective 1/1/2017.
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, 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. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
On July 29, 2016, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-487-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The project is known as the Cedar Station Upgrade Project (Project), and would involve the construction of a new 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop
On August 11, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
Northern proposes to construct the following facilities:
• About 7.86 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline loop;
• a pig
• a pig receiver and tie-in valve, and modifications to regulators and piping within the existing Cedar Meter Station boundaries.
On February 23, 2016, the Commission issued a
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary prescriptions: 60 Days from the issuance date of this notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor 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.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l. The Millville project consists of: (1) A 14.0-foot-high concrete and stone dam consisting of three sections: a 36-foot-long non-overflow abutment on the east bank; an 813-foot long, non-gated spillway section; and a 122-foot-long intake structure, equipped with four vertical lift gates and one canal gate, and extending to the west riverbank; (2) a 100 acre reservoir with gross storage capacity of 900 acre-feet at elevation 324.0 mean sea level; (3) a 1,600-foot-long, 30-foot-wide, 12-foot-high masonry and concrete sided headrace canal; (4) a 125-foot-long, 40-foot-wide brick powerhouse containing 3 turbine-generating units with a combined capacity of 2.84 megawatts; (5) a 550-foot-long tailrace, excavated in bedrock and returning flow to the river channel; and (6) a 1,006-foot-long, 2.4 kilovolt (kV) transmission line to a transformer, with a 794-foot-long, 34.5 kV transmission line to the interconnection with the local grid.
m. A copy of the application is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
Register online at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST”, “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (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, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). 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. 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.
o. Procedural Schedule:
The application will be processed according to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for environmental analysis provided for in 5.22: (1) A copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding Ampex Energy, 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 November 23, 2016.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
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
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public teleconference of the Science and Information Subcommittee (SIS) to the Great Lakes Advisory Board (Board). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) covering FY15-19 and other relevant matters.
The teleconference will be held on Thursday, November 17, 2016 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Central Time, 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. An opportunity will be provided to the public to comment. Due to administrative circumstances, EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days' public notice.
The public teleconference will be held by teleconference only. The teleconference number is: 1-877-226-9607; participant code: 605 016 6037.
Any member of the public wishing further information regarding this teleconference may contact Rita Cestaric, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Willingness to Pay Survey to Evaluate Recreational Benefits of Nutrient Reductions in Coastal New England Waters” (EPA ICR No. 2558.01, OMB Control No. 2080-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before January 9, 2017.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2016-0632, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Marisa Mazzotta, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Atlantic Ecology Division, 27 Tarzwell Drive, Narragansett, Rhode Island 02882; telephone number: 401-782-3026; fax number: 401-782-3139; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) 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; (ii) 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; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) 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,
One of the key water quality concerns on Cape Cod, and throughout New England, is nonpoint sources of nitrogen, which lead to ecological impairments in estuaries, with resultant socio-economic impacts. The decisions needed to meet water quality standards are highly complex and involve significant cross-disciplinary challenges in identifying, implementing, and monitoring social and ecological management needs. We will focus on understanding recreational uses as valued economic goods in coastal New England (including beachgoing, swimming, fishing, shellfishing, and boating).
As a part of these efforts, EPA's ORD/AED is seeking approval to conduct a revealed preference survey to collect data on: People's saltwater recreational activities; how recreational values are related to water quality; how perceptions of water quality relate to objective measures; the connections between perceptions of water quality, recreational choices and values, and sense of place; and demographic information. If approved, the survey will be administered using a mixed-mode approach that includes a mailed invitation to a web survey with an optional paper survey for people who are unable or unwilling to answer the web survey. The survey will be sent to a total of 8,400 residents living in counties where more than 25% of the county's geographic boundaries falls within 100 miles of the Cape as measured from Bourne, Massachusetts, which is the first town on Cape Cod heading east. This area includes coastal counties of New Hampshire, the eastern half of Massachusetts, all of Rhode Island, and the eastern part of Connecticut. In addition, we will oversample two populations: residents of Cape Cod and people who shellfish recreationally. We will send 750 surveys to each of these groups.
ORD will use the survey responses to estimate willingness to pay for changes related to reductions in nutrient and pathogen loadings to coastal New England waters. The analysis relies on state of the art theoretical and statistical tools for non-market welfare analysis. A non-response bias analysis will also be conducted to inform the interpretation and validation of survey responses.
All responses to the survey will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. To ensure that the final survey sample includes a representative and diverse population of individuals, the survey questionnaire will elicit basic demographic information, such as age, race and ethnicity, number of children under 18, type of employment, and income. However, the survey questionnaire will not ask respondents for personal identifying information, such as names or phone numbers. Instead, each survey response will receive a unique identification number. Prior to taking the survey, respondents will be informed that their responses will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The name and address of the respondent will not appear in the resulting database, preserving the respondents' identities. The survey data will be made public only after it has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that all other potentially identifying information has been removed. After data entry is complete, the surveys themselves will be destroyed and only respondent codes will remain.
T
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission released a public notice announcing the meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and agenda.
Thursday, December 1, 2016, 10:00 a.m.
Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Carmell Weathers, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5-C162, Washington, DC 20554.
Carmell Weathers at (202) 418-2325 or
This is a summary of the Commission's document in CC Docket No. 92-237, DA 16-1240 released November 1, 2016. The complete text in this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Thursday, December 1, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC. This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for
* The Agenda may be modified at the discretion of the NANC Chairman with the approval of the DFO.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Architecture (Task Force) will hold its ninth meeting.
December 2, 2016.
Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-C305 (Commission Meeting Room), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Timothy May, Federal Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 202-418-1463, email:
The meeting will be held on December 2, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the FCC, Room TW-305, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The Task Force is a Federal Advisory Committee that studies and reports findings and recommendations on PSAP structure, architecture, operations, and funding to promote greater efficiency of PSAP operations, security, and cost containment during the deployment of Next Generation 911 systems. On December 2, 2014, pursuant to the FACA, the Commission established the Task Force charter for a period of two years, through December 2, 2016. At this meeting, the Task Force will hear presentations and consider votes to adopt the reports and recommendations of the Task Force's three working groups: Working Group 1—Cybersecurity: Optimal Approach for PSAPs, Working Group 2—Optimal 911 Service Architecture, and Working 3—Optimal Resource Allocation.
Members of the general public may attend the meeting. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many attendees as possible; however, admittance will be limited to seating availability. The Commission will provide audio and/or video coverage of the meeting over the Internet from the FCC's Web page at
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10321, Community National Bank, Lino Lakes, Minnesota (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Community National Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10438, Plantation Federal Bank, Pawleys Island, South Carolina (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Plantation Federal Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as Receiver for 10373, Colorado Capital Bank, Castle Rock, Colorado (“Receiver”), has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the receivership estate of Colorado Capital Bank (“Receivership Estate”); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law. The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds. Effective November 1, 2016, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.
Notice Is Hereby Given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Cape Fear Bank, Wilmington, North Carolina (“the Receiver”), intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Cape Fear Bank on April 10, 2009. 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.
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 November 25, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1.
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
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the
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 December 7, 2016.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to
1.
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
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 December 5, 2016.
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 23, 2016.
1.
USA.gov Contact Center, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
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 regarding the National Contact Center customer evaluation surveys. A notice was published in the
Submit comments on or before: January 9, 2017.
Mr. David Kaufmann, Federal Information Specialist, Office of Citizen Services and Communications, at telephone 202-357-9661 or via email to
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
•
•
This information collection will be used to assess the public's satisfaction with the USA.gov National Contact Center service(formerly the Federal Citizen Information Center's (FCIC) National Contact Center), to assist in increasing the efficiency in responding to the public's need for Federal information, and to assess the effectiveness of marketing efforts.
The following are estimates of the annual hourly burdens for our surveys based on historical participation in our surveys.
Respondents: 6000.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Annual Responses: 6000.
Hours per Response:
Total Burden Hours:
Respondents:
Responses per Respondent:
Annual Responses:
Hours per Response:
Total Burden Hours:
Respondents:
Responses per Respondent:
Annual Responses:
Hours per Response:
Total Burden Hours:
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
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 No. 3090-0278, National Contact Center Customer Evaluation Survey, in all correspondence.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a Town Hall meeting in accordance with section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Social Security Act (the Act) to discuss fiscal year (FY) 2018 applications for add-on payments for new medical services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Interested parties are invited to this meeting to present their comments, recommendations, and data regarding whether the FY 2018 new medical services and technologies applications meet the substantial clinical improvement criterion.
In addition, we are providing two alternatives to attending the meeting in person—(1) there will be an open toll-free phone line to call into the Town Hall Meeting; or (2) participants may view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live stream technology or webinar. Information on these options is discussed in section II.B. of this notice.
Alternatively, you may forward your requests via email to
Sections 1886(d)(5)(K) and (L) of the Social Security Act (the Act) require the Secretary to establish a process of identifying and ensuring adequate payments to acute care hospitals for new medical services and technologies under Medicare. Effective for discharges beginning on or after October 1, 2001, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(i) of the Act requires the Secretary to establish (after notice and opportunity for public comment) a mechanism to recognize the costs of new services and technologies under the hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). In addition, section 1886(d)(5)(K)(vi) of the Act specifies that a medical service or technology will be considered “new” if it meets criteria established by the Secretary (after notice and opportunity for public comment). (See the fiscal year (FY) 2002 IPPS proposed rule (66 FR 22693, May 4, 2001) and final rule (66 FR 46912, September 7, 2001) for a more detailed discussion.)
In the September 7, 2001 final rule (66 FR 46914), we noted that we evaluated a request for special payment for a new medical service or technology against the following criteria in order to determine if the new technology meets the substantial clinical improvement requirement:
• The device offers a treatment option for a patient population unresponsive to, or ineligible for, currently available treatments.
• The device offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition in a patient population where that medical condition is currently undetectable or offers the ability to diagnose a medical condition earlier in a patient population than allowed by currently available methods. There must also be evidence that use of the device to make a diagnosis affects the management of the patient.
• Use of the device significantly improves clinical outcomes for a patient population as compared to currently available treatments. Some examples of outcomes that are frequently evaluated in studies of medical devices are the following:
++ Reduced mortality rate with use of the device.
++ Reduced rate of device-related complications.
++ Decreased rate of subsequent diagnostic or therapeutic interventions (for example, due to reduced rate of recurrence of the disease process).
++ Decreased number of future hospitalizations or physician visits.
++ More rapid beneficial resolution of the disease process treatment because of the use of the device.
++ Decreased pain, bleeding or other quantifiable symptoms.
++ Reduced recovery time.
In addition, we indicated that the requester is required to submit evidence that the technology meets one or more of these criteria.
Section 1886(d)(5)(K)(viii) of the Act specifies that the process for evaluating new medical services and technology applications shall include the following:
• Provide for public input regarding whether a new service or technology represents an advance in medical technology that substantially improves the diagnosis or treatment of Medicare beneficiaries before publication of a proposed rule.
• Make public and periodically update a list of all the services and technologies for which an application is pending.
• Accept comments, recommendations, and data from the public regarding whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement.
• Provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS as to whether the service or technology represents a substantial improvement before publication of a proposed rule.
The opinions and presentations provided during this meeting will assist us as we evaluate the new medical services and technology applications for FY 2018. In addition, they will help us to evaluate our policy on the IPPS new technology add-on payment process before the publication of the FY 2018 IPPS proposed rule.
As noted in section I. of this notice, we are required to provide for a meeting at which organizations representing hospitals, physicians, manufacturers and any other interested party may present comments, recommendations, and data to the clinical staff of CMS concerning whether the service or technology represents a substantial clinical improvement. This meeting will allow for a discussion of the substantial clinical improvement criteria for each of the FY 2018 new medical services and technology add-on payment applications. Information regarding the applications can be found on our Web site at
The majority of the meeting will be reserved for presentations of comments, recommendations, and data from registered presenters. The time for each presenter's comments will be approximately 10 to 15 minutes and will be based on the number of registered presenters. Individuals who would like to present must register and submit their agenda item(s) via email to
In addition, written comments will also be accepted and presented at the meeting if they are received via email to
For participants who cannot attend the Town Hall Meeting in person, an open toll-free phone line, (844) 396-8222, has been made available. The Meeting Place meeting ID is 902 252 617.
Also, there will be an option to view and participate in the Town Hall Meeting via live streaming technology
We cannot guarantee reliability for live streaming technology or a webinar.
The Division of Acute Care in CMS is coordinating the meeting registration for the Town Hall Meeting on substantial clinical improvement. While there is no registration fee, individuals planning to attend the Town Hall Meeting in person must register to attend.
Registration may be completed on-line at the following web address:
If you are unable to register online, you may register by sending an email to
Because the meeting will be located on Federal property, for security reasons, any persons wishing to attend this meeting must register by the date specified in the
Security measures include the following:
• Presentation of government-issued photographic identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel.
• CMS policy requires that every foreign national (defined by the Department of Homeland Security is “an individual who is a citizen of any country other than the United States”) is assigned a host (in accordance with the Department Foreign Visitor Management Policy, Appendix C, Guidelines for Hosts and Escorts). The host/hosting official is required to inform the Division of Physical Security and Strategic Information (DPPSI) at least 12 business days in advance of any visit by a foreign national. Foreign nationals will be required to produce a valid passport at the time of entry.
Attendees that are foreign nationals need to identify themselves as such, and make a request for a special accommodation. Foreign national visitors are defined as non-U.S. citizens; and non-lawful permanent residents, non-resident aliens or non-green card holders. Foreign nationals must provide the following information for security clearance to staff listed in the
++ Visitor's full name (as it appears on passport).
++ Gender.
++ Country of origin and citizenship.
++ Date of birth.
++ Place of birth.
++ Passport number.
++ Passport issue date.
++ Passport expiration date.
++ Visa type.
++ Date(s) of visit(s).
++ Company name.
++ Position/Title.
• Inspection of vehicle's interior and exterior (this includes engine and trunk inspection) at the entrance to the grounds. Parking permits and instructions will be issued after the vehicle inspection.
• Inspection, via metal detector or other applicable means of all persons entering the building. We note that all items brought to CMS, whether personal or for the purpose of presentation or to support a presentation, are subject to inspection. We cannot assume responsibility for coordinating the receipt, transfer, transport, storage, set-up, safety, or timely arrival of any personal belongings or items used for presentation or to support a presentation.
All visitors must be escorted in all areas other than the lower level lobby and cafeteria area and first floor auditorium and conference areas in the Central Building. Seating capacity is limited to the first 250 registrants.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Proposed notice.
This proposed notice with comment period announces changes that would be made to the Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) for use by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and manufacturers under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP). We are updating the NDRA to incorporate legislative and regulatory changes that have occurred since the agreement was published in the February 21, 1991
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on February 7, 2017.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-2397-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
4.
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD— Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.
If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Terry Simananda, (410) 786-8144.
Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.
Under the Medicaid Program, states may provide coverage of outpatient drugs furnished to eligible individuals as an optional benefit under section 1905(a)(12) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Section 1903(a) of the Act provides for federal financial participation (FFP) in state expenditures for these drugs. In general, for payment to be made available under section 1903 of the Act for most drugs, manufacturers must enter into, and have in effect, a Medicaid National Drug Rebate Agreement (NDRA) with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as set forth in section 1927(a) of the Act.
Authorized under section 1927 of the Act, the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP) is a program that includes CMS, State Medicaid Agencies, and participating drug manufacturers that helps to partially offset the federal and state costs of most outpatient prescriptions drugs dispensed to Medicaid patients. Currently there are more than 600 drug manufacturers who participate in the MDRP. The NDRA provides that manufacturers are responsible for notifying states of a new drug's coverage. Additionally, manufacturers are required to report all covered outpatient drugs under their labeler code to the MDRP and may not be selective in reporting their NDCs to the program. Manufacturers are then responsible for paying a rebate on those drugs for which payment was made under the state plan. These rebates are paid by manufacturers on a quarterly basis to states and are shared between the states and the federal government to partially offset the overall cost of prescription drugs under the Medicaid Program.
We are updating the NDRA to reflect the changes in the Covered Outpatient Drug final rule with comment period that was published in the February 1, 2016
In the Addendum to this notice with comment period, we provide a draft of the updated NDRA that we would use in the MDRP. If adopted, a drug manufacturer that seeks Medicaid coverage for its drugs would need to enter into the NDRA with the Secretary agreeing to provide the applicable rebate on those drugs for which payment was made under the state plan. We intend to use the updated NDRA as a standard agreement that will not be subject to further revisions based on negotiations with individual manufacturers.
As stated in section 4711(f) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, and Executive Order 12291 shall not apply to information and regulations required for purposes of carrying out this Act and implementing the amendments made by this Act. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
The Secretary, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and all states which have a Medicaid State Plan approved under 42 U.S.C. 1396a, and the manufacturer, on its own behalf, for purposes of section 1927 of the Social Security Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. 1396r-8, hereby agree to the following:
The terms defined in this section will, for the purposes of this agreement, have the meanings specified in section 1927 of the Act and implementing Federal regulations, as interpreted and applied herein:
In order for the Secretary to authorize that a state receive payment for the manufacturer's drugs under Title XIX of the Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1396
(a) The manufacturer shall identify an individual point of contact at a United States address to facilitate the necessary communications with states with respect to rebate invoice issues.
(b) Beginning with the quarter in which the National Drug Rebate Agreement (rebate agreement) is signed, calculate, and report all required pricing data on every covered outpatient drug by NDC in accordance with section 1927 of the Act and as implemented by 42 CFR 447.510. Furthermore, except as provided under section V(b) of this agreement, manufacturers are required to make a rebate payment in accordance with each calculated URA to each State Medicaid Agency for the manufacturer's covered outpatient drug(s) by NDC paid for by the state during a rebate period.
(c) In accordance with the specifications pursuant to Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved CMS-367c form, report all covered outpatient drugs and corresponding drug product, pricing, and related data to the Secretary, upon entering into this agreement. This information is to be updated as necessary to include new NDCs and updates to existing NDCs. CMS uses drug information listed with FDA, such as Marketing Category and Drug Type, to be able to verify in some cases that an NDC meets the definition of a covered outpatient drug, therefore, manufacturers should ensure that their NDCs are electronically listed with FDA. Reports to CMS should include all applicable NDCs identifying the drug product which may be dispensed to a beneficiary, including package NDCs (outer package NDCs and inner package NDCs).
(d) Beginning with the effective date quarter and in accordance with the specifications pursuant to OMB-approved CMS-367a form, report quarterly pricing data to the Secretary for all covered outpatient drugs in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510. This includes reporting for any package size which may be dispensed to the beneficiary. The manufacturer agrees to provide such information within 30 days of the last day of each rebate period beginning with the effective date quarter. Adjustments to all quarterly pricing data shall be reported on at least a quarterly basis.
(e) In accordance with the OMB-approved CMS-367b form, report information including monthly AMPs and monthly AMP units for all covered outpatient drugs in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510. The manufacturer agrees to provide such information within 30 days of the end of the month of the effective date, and within 30 days of each month thereafter.
(f) Except as provided under V(b), to make rebate payments within 30 days after receiving the state rebate invoice. The manufacturer is responsible for timely payment of the rebate within 30 days so long as the state invoice contains, at a minimum, the number of units paid by NDC in accordance with 1927(b)(1) of the Act. To the extent that changes in product, pricing, or related data cause increases to previously submitted total rebate amounts, the manufacturer will be responsible for timely payment of those increases in the same 30 day time frame as the current rebate invoice.
(g) To comply with the conditions of 42 U.S.C. section 1396r-8, changes thereto, implementing regulations, agency guidance and this Agreement.
(h) In accordance with 1927(a)(1) of the Act, rebate agreements between the Secretary and the manufacturer entered into before March 1, 1991 are retroactive to January 1, 1991. Rebate agreements entered into on or after March 1, 1991 shall have a mandatory effective date equal to the first day of the rebate period that begins more than 60 days after the date the agreement is entered into. Rebate agreements entered into on or after November 29, 1999 will also have an effective date equal to the date the rebate agreement is entered into that will permit optional state coverage of the manufacturer's NDCs as of that date.
(i) To obtain and maintain access to the system used by the Medicaid Drug Rebate program, use that system to report required data to CMS, and ensure that their contact information is kept updated as required in the OMB-approved CMS-367d form.
(j) To continue to make a rebate payment on all of its covered outpatient drugs for as long as an agreement with the Secretary is in force and state utilization data reports that payment was made for that drug, regardless of whether the manufacturer continues to market that drug. If there are no sales by the manufacturer during a rebate period, the AMP and best price reported in the prior rebate period should be used in calculating rebates.
(k) To keep records (written or electronic) of the data and any other material from which the calculations of AMP and best price were derived in accordance with 42 CFR 447.510, and make such records available to the Secretary upon request. In the absence of specific guidance in section 1927 of the Act, federal regulations and the terms of this agreement, the manufacturer may make reasonable assumptions in its calculations of AMP and best price, consistent with the purpose of section 1927 of the Act, federal regulations and the terms of this agreement. A record (written or electronic) explaining these assumptions must also be maintained by the manufacturer in accordance with the recordkeeping requirements in 42 CFR 447.534, and such records must be made available to the Secretary upon request.
(l) To notify CMS of any filing of bankruptcy, and to transmit such filing to CMS within seven days of the date of filing.
(a) The Secretary will employ best efforts to ensure the State Medicaid Agency shall report to the manufacturer, within 60 days of the last day of each rebate period, the rebate invoice (CMS-R-144) or the minimum utilization information as described in section II(f) of this agreement, that is, information about Medicaid utilization of covered outpatient drugs that were paid for during the rebate period. Additionally, the Secretary will expect any changes to prior quarterly state drug utilization data to be reported at the same time.
(b) The Secretary may survey those wholesalers and manufacturers that directly distribute their covered outpatient drugs to verify manufacturer prices and may impose civil monetary penalties as set forth in section 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and section IV of this agreement.
(c) The Secretary may audit manufacturer information reported under section 1927(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
(a) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty under section III(b), as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and applicable regulations, on a wholesaler, manufacturer, or direct seller of a covered outpatient drug, if a wholesaler, manufacturer, or direct seller of a covered outpatient drug refuses a request by the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee, for information about covered outpatient drug charges or prices or knowingly provides false information, including in any of its quarterly reports to the Secretary. The provisions of section 1128A of the Act (other than subsection (a) (with respect to amounts of penalties or additional assessments) and (b)) shall apply as set forth in section 1927(b)(3)(B) of the Act and applicable regulations.
(b) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty, for each item of false information as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the Act and applicable regulations.
(c) The Secretary may impose a civil monetary penalty for failure to provide timely information on AMP, best price or base date AMP. The amount of the penalty shall be determined as set forth in 1927(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act and applicable regulations.
(d) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to limit the remedies available to the United States or the states for a violation of this Agreement or any other provision of law.
(a) In the event a manufacturer discovers a potential discrepancy with state drug utilization data on the rebate invoice, which the manufacturer and state in good faith are unable to resolve prior to the payment due date, the manufacturer will submit a Reconciliation of State Invoice (ROSI) form, the CMS-304, to the state. If such a discrepancy is discovered for a prior rebate period's invoice, the manufacturer will submit a Prior Quarter Adjustment Statement (PQAS) form, CMS-304a, to the state.
(b) If the manufacturer disputes in good faith any part of the state drug utilization data on the rebate invoice, the manufacturer shall pay the state for the rebate units not in dispute within the required due date in II(f). Upon resolution of the dispute, the manufacturer will either pay the balance due, if any, plus interest as set forth in section 1903(d)(5) of the Act, or be issued a credit by the state by the due date of the next quarterly payment in II(f).
(c) The state and the manufacturer will use their best efforts to resolve a dispute arising under (a) or (b) above within 60 days of the state's receipt of the manufacturer's ROSI/PQAS. In the event that the state and manufacturer are not able to resolve the dispute within 60 days, CMS shall require the state to make available to the manufacturer the same state hearing mechanism available to providers for Medicaid payment disputes.
(d) Nothing in this section shall preclude the right of the manufacturer to audit the state drug utilization data reported (or required to be reported) by the state. The Secretary encourages the manufacturer and the state to develop mutually beneficial audit procedures.
(e) The state hearing mechanism is not binding on the Secretary for
(a) Pursuant to section 1927(b)(3)(D) of the Act and this agreement, information disclosed by the manufacturer in connection with this agreement is confidential and, notwithstanding other laws, will not be disclosed by the Secretary or State Medicaid Agency in a form which reveals the manufacturer, or prices charged by the manufacturer, except as authorized under section 1927(b)(3)(D).
(b) The manufacturer will hold state drug utilization data confidential. If the manufacturer audits this information or receives further information on such data, that information shall also be held confidential. Except where otherwise specified in the Act or agreement, the manufacturer will observe confidentiality statutes, regulations, and other properly promulgated policy concerning such data.
(c) Notwithstanding the nonrenewal or termination of this agreement for any reason, these confidentiality provisions will remain in full force and effect.
(a) Unless otherwise terminated by either party pursuant to the terms of this agreement, the agreement shall be effective beginning on the date specified in section II(h) of this agreement and shall be automatically renewed for additional successive terms of one year unless the manufacturer gives written notice of intent not to renew the agreement at least 90 days before the end of the current period.
(b) In accordance with section VII(a) of this agreement, the manufacturer may terminate the agreement for any reason, and such termination shall become effective the later of the first day of the first rebate period beginning 60 days after the manufacturer gives written notice requesting termination, or CMS initiates termination via written notice to the manufacturer.
The Secretary may terminate the agreement for failure of a manufacturer to make rebate payments to the state(s), failure to report required data, for other violations of this agreement, or other good cause upon 60 days prior written notice to the manufacturer of the existence of such violation or other good cause. The Secretary shall provide, upon request, a manufacturer with a hearing concerning such a termination, but such hearing shall not delay the effective date of the termination.
(c) Manufacturers on the Office of Inspector General's (OIG's) List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (Exclusion List) will be subject to immediate termination from the Medicaid drug rebate program unless and until the manufacturer is reinstated by the OIG. Appeals of exclusion and any reinstatement will be handled in accordance with section 1128 of the Act and applicable regulations. Manufacturers that are on the OIG Exclusion List and are reinstated by the OIG under certain circumstances may be evaluated for reinstatement to the Medicaid drug rebate program by CMS. Reinstatement to the Medicaid drug rebate program would be for the next rebate period that begins more than 60 days from the date of the OIG's reinstatement of the manufacturer after exclusion.
(d) If this rebate agreement is terminated, the manufacturer is prohibited from entering into another rebate agreement as set forth in section 1927(b)(4)(C) of the Act for at least one rebate period from the effective date of the termination, and the manufacturer addresses to the satisfaction of CMS any outstanding violations from any previous rebate agreement(s), including, but not limited to, payment of any outstanding rebates and good faith efforts to appeal or resolve matters pending with the OIG, unless the Secretary finds good cause for earlier reinstatement.
(e) Any nonrenewal or termination will not affect rebates due before the effective date of termination.
(a) This agreement is subject to any changes in the Medicaid statute or regulations that affect the rebate program.
(b) Any notice required to be given pursuant to the terms and provisions of this agreement will be permitted in writing or electronically.
Notice to the Secretary will be sent to: Centers for Medicaid and CHIP Services, Disabled & Elderly Health Programs Group, Division of Pharmacy, Mail Stop S2-14-26, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244.
The CMS address may be updated upon notice to the manufacturer.
Notice to the manufacturer will be sent to the email and/or physical mailing address as provided under section X of this agreement and updated upon manufacturer notification to CMS at the email and/or address in this agreement.
(c) In the event of a transfer in ownership of the manufacturer, this agreement and any outstanding rebate liability are automatically assigned to the new owner subject to the conditions as set forth in section 1927 of the Act.
(d) Nothing in this agreement will be construed to require or authorize the commission of any act contrary to law. If any provision of this agreement is found to be invalid by a court of law, this agreement will be construed in all respects as if any invalid or unenforceable provision were eliminated, and without any effect on any other provision.
(e) Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of any legal rights of the manufacturer or the Secretary under the Constitution, the Act, other federal laws, or state laws.
(f) The rebate agreement shall be construed in accordance with Federal law and ambiguities shall be interpreted in the manner which best effectuates the statutory scheme.
(g) The terms “State Medicaid Agency” and “Manufacturer” incorporate any contractors which fulfill responsibilities pursuant to the agreement unless specifically provided for in the rebate agreement or specifically agreed to by an appropriate CMS official.
(h) Except for the conditions specified in II(g) and VIII(a), this agreement will not be altered except by an amendment in writing signed by both parties. No person is authorized to alter or vary the terms unless the alteration appears by way of a written amendment, signed by duly appointed representatives of the Secretary and the manufacturer.
(i) In the event that a due date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the report or other item will be due on the first business day following that weekend or Federal holiday.
CMS-367 attached hereto is part of this agreement.
(signature)
(signature)
CMS-367d (Exp. 03/31/2019), OMB No. 0938-0578 According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0938-0578. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time to review instructions, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Attn: PRA Reports Clearance Officer, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
OMB No.: New Collection.
There is little consensus on how HMRE programs should address IPV or TDV in their programs. To date, no IPV or TDV screening tools have been empirically tested among HMRE program participants. The objective of the proposed data collection is to test and validate IPV and TDV screening instruments among HMRE program participants. Findings from this data collection will be used to develop practical, responsive guidance on IPV and TDV screening and surrounding protocols for HMRE programs.
Data collection will entail testing eight screening instruments: Six closed-ended screening instruments (three for IPV, three for TDV), and two open-ended instruments (one for IPV, one for TDV). Trained HMRE grantee staff at approximately 6 grant programs will implement the four IPV screening tools among approximately 600 adult participants and the four TDV screening tools among approximately 600 youth participants. It is anticipated that each participant will engage in four rounds of data collection, one round for each IPV or TDV instrument, at least two weeks apart. Data collection is expected to occur through Spring 2019.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory committee meeting.
Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) as soon as possible.
Title 5, U.S.C. Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Public Law 95-454, requires that the appointment of Performance Review Board Members be published in the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Drug Testing Advisory Board (DTAB) will meet via web conference on December 7, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.
The Board will meet in closed session on December 7, 2016, from 10:00am to 5:00pm, to review and discuss draft Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Hair) proposals. Therefore, this meeting is closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
Meeting information and a roster of DTAB members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Advisory Committees Web site,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The Act requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator,
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The applicant requests a permit to tag (flipper tag, PIT-tag, and attach satellite transmitters) to rehabilitated sea turtles prior to release in Florida. The sea turtle species are the green (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, identify, release) the Guyandotte River crayfish (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, identify, release) the Guyandotte River crayfish (
The applicant requests renewal of their permit to continue to live-trap and release the American burying beetle (
The applicant requests amendment of her current permit to add authorization to take (capture, handle, take fin clips, and release) the Cumberland darter (
The applicant requests amendment of their current permit to add the State of Virginia as a geographic location in which presence/absence surveys for 36 species of endangered mussels may be conducted and add authorization to take (capture, handle, release) the Kentucky arrow darter (
The applicant requests a permit to take (mist-net, handle, band, radio-tag) the gray bat (
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a public meeting of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council (Council). A Federal advisory committee, the Council was created in part to foster partnerships to enhance public awareness of the importance of aquatic resources and the social and economic benefits of recreational fishing and boating in the United States. This meeting is open to the public, and interested persons may make oral statements to the Council or may file written statements for consideration.
The meeting will take place Tuesday, November 29, 2016, from 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Eastern Time) and Wednesday, November 30, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. For deadlines and directions on registering to attend the meeting, submitting written material, and/or giving an oral presentation, please see “Public Input” under
The meeting will be held at the Department of the Interior, North Penthouse Conference Room, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.
Brian Bohnsack, Council Coordinator, Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Mailstop FAC, Falls Church, VA 22041; telephone (703) 358-2435; fax (703) 358-2487; or email
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., we announce that the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council will hold a meeting.
The Council was formed in January 1993 to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, on aquatic conservation endeavors that benefit recreational fishery resources and recreational boating and that encourage partnerships among industry, the public, and government. The Council represents the interests of the public
The Council will hold a meeting to consider issues affecting recreational fishing and boating programs on federal lands. An abbreviated list of planned agenda items include:
• An update on the effects of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act on Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund grant programs and other updates from the Services' Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program;
• An update and discussion regarding the Council's proposed pilot project to improve the efficiency of federal agencies' permitting processes associated with boating infrastructure projects (
• An update on the joint effort by the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop performance metrics for Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation (RBFF) with its implementation of the National Outreach and Communication Program;
• An update from the RBFF;
• A discussion and development of the Council's recommendations of priorities for Department of the Interior agencies fishing and boating programs for the future;
• An update on the status of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Fish and Aquatic Conservation Program;
• Other miscellaneous Council business and programmatic updates.
The final agenda will be posted on the Internet at
The Council meeting will be held at the North Penthouse, Department of the Interior, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. Signs will be posted to direct attendees to the specific conference room.
Interested members of the public may submit relevant information or questions for the Council to consider during the meeting. Written statements must be received by the date listed above in “Public Input,” so that the information may be made available to the Council for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements must be supplied to the Council Coordinator in one of the following formats: One hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via email (acceptable file formats are Adobe Acrobat PDF, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, or rich text file).
Individuals or groups requesting to make an oral presentation during the meeting will be limited to 2 minutes per speaker, with no more than a total of 30 minutes for all speakers. Interested parties should contact the Council Coordinator, in writing (preferably via email; see
Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained by the Council's Designated Federal Officer (see
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (Act) prohibits activities with endangered and threatened species unless a Federal permit allows such activity. The Act also requires that we invite public comment before issuing recovery permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species.
Comments on these permit applications must be received on or before December 9, 2016.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Endangered Species Program Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 8, 2800 Cottage
Daniel Marquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist; see
The following applicants have applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the California tiger salamander (Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS)) (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, and release) the Casey's June beetle (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, mark, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, transfer, hold for less than 24 hours, and release) the San Francisco garter snake (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (locate and monitor nests and remove brown-headed cowbird (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the Fresno kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (capture, handle, mark, collect biological samples, radio-collar, survey, translocate, and release) the Peninsular bighorn sheep (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (administer veterinary care for, house, and display for educational purposes) the Peninsular bighorn sheep (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, collect branchiopod cysts, collection and translocation of inocula from dry vernal pools to created pools) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, and release) the tidewater goby (
The applicant requests a new permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal and amendment to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit renewal to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit amendment to take (harass by survey, capture, handle, release, collect vouchers, and collect branchiopod cysts) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
We invite public review and comment on each of these recovery permit applications. Comments and materials we receive will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the address listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the San Juan Islands National Monument Advisory Committee (MAC) will meet as indicated below:
The MAC will hold a public meeting Monday, November 28th, 2016. The meeting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held at San Juan Island Grange Hall in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island. Public comment periods will be available in the afternoon from noon until 12:30 and 3:00 p.m. until 3:30 p.m.
Marcia deChadenèdes, San Juan Islands National Monument Manager, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Pl., Suite 101, Lopez Island, Washington 98261, (360) 468-3051, or
The twelve member San Juan Islands MAC was chartered to provide information and advice regarding the development of the San Juan Islands National Monuments Resource Management Plan. Members represent an array of stakeholder interests in the land and resources from within the local area and statewide. All advisory committee meetings are open to the public. At noon and at 3:00 p.m. members of the public will have the opportunity to make comments to the MAC during half-hour public comment periods. Persons wishing to make comments during the public comment period should register in person with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) by 11:00 a.m. or 2:00 p.m. respectively on the meeting day, at the meeting location. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment, the length of comments may be limited. The public may send written comments to the MAC at San Juan Islands National Monument, Attn. MAC, P.O. Box 3, 37 Washburn Pl., Suite 101, Lopez Island, Washington 98261. The BLM appreciates all comments.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Alaska State Office hereby notifies the public that it will hold an oil and gas lease sale bid opening for tracts in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The United States reserves the right to withdraw any tract from this sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid.
The sealed oil and gas lease sale bid opening will be held at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14, 2016. Sealed bids must be received by 4:00 p.m., Monday, December 12, 2016.
The oil and gas lease sale bids will be opened at the Anchorage Federal Building, Denali Room (fourth floor), 222 West 7th Avenue, Anchorage, AK. Sealed bids must be sent to Carol Taylor (AK932), BLM-Alaska State Office, 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504.
Wayne Svejnoha, 907-271-4407. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Alaska State Office, under the authority of 43 CFR 3131.4-1(a), hereby notifies the public it will hold an oil and gas lease sale bid opening for tracts in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. All bids must be submitted by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions identified in the Detailed Statement of Sale. The bids must be received at the BLM-Alaska State Office, ATTN: Carol Taylor (AK932), 222 West 7th Avenue #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 12, 2016.
The Detailed Statement of Sale for the 2016 Oil and Gas Lease Sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska may be obtained from the BLM-Alaska Web site at
The Detailed Statement of Sale will include a description of the tracts to be offered for lease on December 14, 2016, the lease terms, conditions, special stipulations, required operating procedures, and how and where to submit bids for the lease tracts offered.
43 CFR 3131.4-1 and 43 U.S.C. 1733 and 1740.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Gettysburg Foundation has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Gettysburg Foundation. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Gettysburg Foundation at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Daniel Bringman, Gettysburg Foundation, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg, PA 17325, telephone (717) 339-2116, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Gettysburg Foundation, Gettysburg, PA. The human remains were reportedly removed by a private citizen from the Josiah Benner Farm, PA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the professional staff at the Gettysburg Foundation with representatives of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; Kewa Pueblo, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of Santo Domingo); Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah; Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico (previously listed as the Pueblo of San Juan); Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (previously listed as the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico & Utah; Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (previously listed as the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas); and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Hereafter, all tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted Tribes.”
At an unknown date, human remains representing, a minimum, 1 individual
Due to the public outcry and threat of a riot, the auction was cancelled. The human cranium and Civil War objects were donated to the Gettysburg Foundation. At the request of the Gettysburg Foundation, the human cranium was sent to the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History for analysis. Forensic analysis of the cranium was used to determine whether the human cranium represented the remains of a Civil War soldier.
Forensic analysis indicates that the human cranium likely is the remains of a male, aged 22 to 25 years, whose ancestry is Native American and most closely associated with Indian tribes of the southwestern United States based on craniometrics measurements.
Stable isotope analysis and a radiocarbon sample were extracted from a fragmented left maxillary third molar. Stable isotope analysis indicates a diet largely comprised of C4 plants, likely maize, with moderate to low levels of meat protein. The AMS radiocarbon dating yielded results of 700 BP + 20 years. Calibrated date ranges are calculated to Cal AD 1269-1299 (94.53%) and Cal AD 1370-1379 (5.47%), respectively. The Civil War Era objects in the auction with the human cranium are not associated funerary objects.
Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the Secretary of the Interior may make a recommendation for a transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains. In July 2016, the Gettysburg Foundation requested that the Secretary, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, recommend the proposed transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains in this notice to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico. The Review Committee, acting pursuant to its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(5), considered the request at its September 2016 meeting and recommended to the Secretary that the proposed transfer of control proceed. An October 20, 2016 letter on behalf of the Secretary of Interior from the National Park Service Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science transmitted the Secretary's independent review and concurrence with the Review Committee that:
• The Gettysburg Foundation consulted with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations,
• none of The Consulted Tribes objected to the proposed transfer of control, and
• the Gettysburg Foundation may proceed with the agreed upon transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico.
Officials of the Gettysburg Foundation have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on the forensic analysis.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the disposition of the human remains will be to the Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Daniel Bringman, Gettysburg Foundation, 1195 Baltimore Pike, Gettysburg, PA 17325, phone 717-339-2116, email
The Gettysburg Foundation is responsible for notifying The Consulted Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of the Omaha District, Omaha, NE., that meet the definition of unassociated funerary objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of
Cultural items consisting of seven unassociated funerary objects that were collected from 39WW7, the Swan Creek site, Dewey County, South Dakota, are presently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC), under the managerial control of the Omaha District.
The Swan Creek site, 39WW2 was an earthlodge village and cemetery that was excavated between 1954 and 1956 prior to inundation by flood waters of the Oahe Reservoir. Over 125 sets of human remains were recovered, and 102 of these individuals are currently housed at SARC and reported under a separate Notice of Inventory Completion. Human remains of the other individuals were reburied in 1986 at site 39ST15.
SARC currently holds seven funerary objects that were originally collected with individuals that were reburied. The excavation records clearly show these items as having been removed from the burial of a specific individual. These seven unassociated funerary objects are one lithic projectile point and six ceramic body sherds from the same ceramic vessel.
Site 39WW7 is an earthlodge village and associated cemetery. Based on village organization, fortifications, geographic location and features, as well as the associated artifact assemblage, the site is believed to represent at least two major time periods, the Akaska Focus of the Extended Coalescent (A.D. 1500-1675) and the Le Beau Phase of the Post Contact Coalescent (A.D. 1675-1780) of the Plans Village tradition. Based on oral tradition, historic accounts, archaeological evidence, geographical location, and physical anthropological interpretations, both the Extended and Post Contact Coalescent variants are believed to be ancestral Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Consultation with the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation indicates that these objects represent the kinds of objects that are placed with individuals at the time of death.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(B), the seven cultural items described above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony and are believed, by a preponderance of the evidence, to have been removed from a specific burial site of a Native American individual.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the unassociated funerary objects and Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Albion College, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, has determined that the cultural items listed in this notice meet the definition of sacred objects. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request to Albion College. If no additional claimants come forward, transfer of control of the cultural items to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Albion College at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Bille Wickre, Department of Art and Art History, Albion College, 611 East Porter Street, Albion, MI 49224, telephone (517) 629-0246, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3005, of the intent to repatriate cultural items under the control of Albion College, Albion, MI, that meet the definition of sacred objects under 25 U.S.C. 3001.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American cultural items. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
At an unknown date before 1973, one sacred object was removed from Zuni lands, most likely from a location in New Mexico. The sacred object is a cottonwood cylinder, 71 cm. long and 23.7 cm. in diameter. It is rounded at both ends and carved to resemble a human figure with a face, ears, hair and cap or helmet at one end and hands at the other end. There is a hole in the front center at a place where some scholars suggest is an umbilicus. The wood is significantly weathered and shows signs of aging. Based upon the form and condition, the object has been determined to be a Zuni
In 1973, the sacred object (
Officials of Albion College have determined that
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(C), one cultural item described above is a specific ceremonial object needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the sacred object and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to claim these cultural items should submit a written request with information in support of the claim to Bille Wickre, Department of Art and Art History, Albion College, 611 East Porter Street, Albion, MI 49224, telephone (517) 629-0246, email
Albion College is responsible for notifying the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the University of California, Berkeley. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the University California, Berkeley at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Jordan Jacobs, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 103 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3712, telephone (510) 643-8230, email
Adapting the notification procedures of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, notice is here given of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the physical custody of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at the University of California, Berkeley. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from the Cardinal Site (CA-Sjo-154) in Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has physical custody of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the professional staff of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, at the University of California, Berkeley in consultation with the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.
In 1976, 36 sets of human remains were removed from the Cardinal Site (CA-Sjo-154) in Stockton, San Joaquin County, CA, by Drs. Richard Hughes and James Bennyhoff. Michael Hoffman, then Curator of Human Osteology at the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, was independently contracted by Hughes and Bennyhoff to conduct analysis, and the human remains were loaned to the Lowie Museum for the duration of the study. Subsequent transfers of the human remains occurred to researchers at Colorado College and Cornell University for study. Following the studies, the human remains were transferred to the physical custody of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley (formerly Lowie Museum) in 1995.
The 106 associated funerary objects are 49 lots of unsorted shell, lithic
Officials of the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on geographical, biological, archeological, linguistic, folklore, oral tradition, and anthropological evidence.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent 36 sets of physical human remains of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 106 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, Executive Orders, evidence submitted via consultation, and anthropological sources indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects were removed is the aboriginal land of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Jordan Jacobs, Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology, 103 Kroeber Hall, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3712, telephone (510) 643-8230, email
The University of California, Berkeley assumes responsibility for notifying the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; California Valley Miwok Tribe, California; Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria, California; Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California; Jackson Band of Miwuk Indians (previously listed as the Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California); Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; Table Mountain Rancheria of California; Tule River Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation, California; Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and Wilton Rancheria, California, that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice; correction.
The Lake County Discovery Museum has corrected a Notice of Inventory Completion in the
Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the correction of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
In the
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Lake County Discovery Museum with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of the Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The following tribes were invited to consult but did not respond to the invitation: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rock Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Confederate Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation (previously listed as the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Nation, Kansas); Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Sac & Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota. All tribes listed above are hereafter referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes.”
The Lake County Discovery Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Lake County Discovery Museum has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Lake County Discovery Museum. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Lake County Discovery Museum at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from unknown locations.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Lake County Discovery Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan (previously listed as the Huron Potawatomi, Inc.); Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan and Indiana; Sac & Fox Nation, Oklahoma; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The following tribes with aboriginal territory in Lake County, IL, were also invited to participate but were not involved in consultations: Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana (previously listed as the Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana); Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (previously listed as the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon); Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
In 1970, human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were placed in the Lake County Discovery Museum collection. The museum has no record of when these human remains were added to the collection or how they came to the museum. There is no additional information available about the human remains. No known individuals were identified. The human remains have been stored in the museum based on the type of bone fragment (
Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the Secretary of the Interior may make a recommendation for a transfer of control of culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects. In June 2016, the Lake County Discovery Museum requested that the Secretary, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, recommend the proposed transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable Native American human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan. The Review Committee, acting pursuant to its responsibility under 25 U.S.C. 3006(c)(5), considered the request at its July 2016 meeting and recommended to the Secretary that the proposed transfer of control proceed. A September 9, 2016, letter on behalf of the Secretary of Interior from the National Park Service Associate Director, Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science transmitted the Secretary's independent review and concurrence with the Review Committee that:
• The Lake County Discovery Museum consulted with appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations,
• None of The Consulted and Invited Tribes objected to the proposed transfer of control, and
• The Lake County Discovery Museum may proceed with the agreed upon transfer of control of the culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Officials of the Lake County Discovery Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on accession records and consultation.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of a minimum of 13 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 2 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and any present-day Indian tribe.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.16, the disposition of the human remains and associated funerary objects will be to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan.
Representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Diana Dretske, Lake County Discovery Museum, 27277 North Forest Preserve Road, Wauconda, IL 60084, telephone (847) 968-3381, email
The Lake County Discovery Museum is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District (Omaha District), has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects, in consultation with the appropriate Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations, and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and present-day Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request to the Omaha District. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the lineal descendants, Indian tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations stated in this notice may proceed.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Omaha District at the address in this notice by December 9, 2016.
Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects under the control of the Omaha District. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from one site, 39WW7, in Walworth, SD. This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains and associated funerary objects was made by State Archaeological Research Center and Omaha District professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Between 1954 and 1956, human remains representing, at minimum, 125 individuals were removed from site 39WW7, also known as Swan Creek Site, in Walworth County, SD. The partial human remains of 102 of these individuals are currently located at the South Dakota State Archaeological Research Center (SARC), under the managerial control of the Omaha District.
The human remains were originally reported to be all stored at the W. H. Over Museum, SD, but were transferred to SARC beginning in 1974. During the 1980s much of the collection was sent to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, to be inventoried. When returned to SARC, inventoried human remains were reburied at site 39ST15 in 1986. Since the reburial, however, additional fragmentary human remains of 102 individuals (mostly individual elements) and 31 associated funerary objects have been located in the collections. Human remains of 95 of these individuals were identified at SARC and seven of these individuals were identified in the collections at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The University of Wisconsin material was transferred to SARC in 2015. Currently SARC houses all known materials from 39WW7.
Based on morphological characteristics, archaeological context, and associated funerary objects, the remains are determined to be Native American. No known individuals were identified. The 31 associated funerary objects are 1 basketry fragment, 17 beads, 1 ceramic body sherd, 3 projectile point fragments, 2 stone knives, 1 sandstone abrader, 1 piece modified shell, 1 piece unmodified shell, 1 squash seed, 1 faunal fragment, 1 lot of cedar wood fragments, and 1 lot of wood sticks.
Site 39WW7 is an earthlodge village and associated cemetery. Based on village organization, fortifications, geographic location, and features, as well as the associated artifact assemblage, the site is believed to represent at least two major time periods, the Akaska Focus of the Extended Coalescent (AD 1500-1675) and the Le Beau Phase of the Post Contact Coalescent (AD 1675-1780) of the Plans Village tradition. Based on oral tradition, historic accounts, archaeological evidence, geographical location, and physical anthropological interpretations, both the Extended and Post Contact Coalescent variants are believed to be ancestral Arikara. The Arikara are represented today by the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Officials of the Omaha District have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 102 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(3)(A), the 31 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota.
Lineal descendants or representatives of any Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains and associated funerary objects should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Ms. Sandra Barnum, U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, ATTN: CENWO-PM-AB, 1616 Capital Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102, telephone, (402) 995-2674, email
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District is responsible for notifying the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota, that this notice has been published.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)) filed on behalf of Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. on November 2, 2016. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain single-molecule nucleic acid sequencing systems and reagents, consumables, and software for use with same. The complaint names as respondents Oxford Nanopore Technologies Ltd. of the United Kingdom; Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. of Cambridge, MA; and Metrichor, Ltd of the United Kingdom. The complainant requests that the Commission issue an exclusion order, cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondents' alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, inclusive of attachments, on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) Explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above and submit 8 true paper copies to the Office of the Secretary by noon the next day pursuant to § 210.4(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.4(f)). Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3182”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-1314 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of phosphor copper from Korea, provided for in subheading 7405.00.10 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, preliminarily determined by the
Porscha Stiger (205-3241), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigation, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On November 3, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia in the lawsuit entitled
The proposed Consent Decree will resolve claims alleged under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) against Poor Charlie and Company (“Poor Charlie”) for costs incurred in responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the Twin Cities Iron and Metal Site (the “Site”) located in Bristol, Virginia. The Consent Decree is based on Poor Charlie's limited ability to pay. Under the proposed Consent Decree, Poor Charlie: (1) Consents to entry of judgment against it in the amount of $3,401,833.31, and (2) assigns the rights to any proceeds from its insurance policies to the United States. In addition, Poor Charlie commits to creating an environmental trust for the benefit of the United States and West Virginia, to which Poor Charlie and all of its assets will be transferred. Under the environmental trust, Poor Charlie will direct its assets toward remediating certain properties it owns in West Virginia, and then distribute any remaining assets as specified in the trust agreement and the Consent Decree.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
During the public comment period, the Consent Decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $26.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. For a paper copy without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost is $8.00.
On November 1, 2016, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed consent decree with the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the lawsuit entitled
The United States filed this lawsuit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). The United States' complaint names JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., WMI Liquidating Trust, and WMI Rainier LLC. The complaint requests recovery of costs that the United States incurred responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances at the BKK Sanitary Landfill Site in West Covina, California. All three defendants signed the consent decree. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. agrees to pay $1 million of the United States' response costs on behalf of all three defendants. In return, the United States agrees not to sue the defendants under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA or under section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The consent decree provides that the United States' agreement not to sue the defendants is also conditioned on JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s payment of $85 million to be directed toward cleanup of the Site under a separate pending consent decree it signed with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control in a separate case relating to the BKK Sanitary Landfill Site,
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Under section 7003(d) of RCRA, a commenter may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected area.
During the public comment period, the consent decree may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department Web site:
Please enclose a check or money order for $9.25 (25 cents per page
I, J. Patricia W. Smoot, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 11 p.m., on Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss three original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Three Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted.
Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of the General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by votes of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: J. Patricia W. Smoot, Patricia Cushwa and Charles T. Massarone.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 29, 2016, applicable to workers of Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Pontoon Solutions, Inc., Tonawanda, New York (TA-W-91,257). The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 97, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of electrical generation, capacity and ancillary services. The Tonawanda facility is a coal-fired electric generation facility.
The company reports that workers leased from Clean MD were employed on-site at the Tonawanda, New York location of Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by customer imports of electricity from a foreign country.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Clean MD working on-site at the Tonawanda, New York location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-91,257 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Huntley Power LLC, a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Pontoon Solutions, Inc. and Clean MD, Tonawanda, New York who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 22, 2014 through January 29, 2018, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on November 12, 2015, applicable to workers of Indiana Marujun, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Adecco and First Call, Winchester, Indiana (TA-W-91,027). The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers firm is engaged in activities related to the production of automotive part components.
The Department has determined that MS Companies was sufficiently under the operational control of Indiana Marujun, LLC, Winchester, Indiana to be considered leased workers.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of the subject firm who were adversely affected by a shift in production of automotive part components or articles like or directly competitive to a foreign country.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from MS Companies working on-site at the Winchester, Indiana location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-91,027 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers from Indiana Marujun, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Adecco, First Call, and MS Companies, Winchester, Indiana who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 2014 through November 12, 2017 and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 21, 2015, applicable to workers of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Lake Orion, Michigan, including on-site leased workers from Development Dimensions International. The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of the State Workforce Office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in activities related to the production of mini/subcompact and compact automobiles.
The company reports that workers leased from Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, were on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan location of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, Lake Orion, Michigan. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, working on-site at the Lake Orion, Michigan, location of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-85,742 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of General Motors Lake Orion Assembly, including on-site leased workers from Development Dimensions International, Eurest Services, Inc., Labor Ready, and Team Industrial Services, Inc. dba Team Solutions, Lake Orion, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 19, 2013 through January 21, 2017, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA-W) number issued during the period of
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
(3) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;
(B) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated, have increased;
(C) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased;
(D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and
(4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or
II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2) One of the following must be satisfied:
(A) There has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production of articles or supply of services like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
(B) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and
(3) either—
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in firms identified by the International Trade Commission and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(e) of the Act must be met.
(1) The workers' firm is publicly identified by name by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President by the International Trade Commission under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in the
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in subparagraph (1) is published in the
(3) the workers have become totally or partially separated from the workers' firm within—
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) not withstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year period preceding the 1-year period described in paragraph (2).
The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services) of the Trade Act have been met.
The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that the criterion under paragraph (a)(1), or (b)(1) (employment decline or threat of separation) of section 222 has not been met.
The investigation revealed that the criteria under paragraphs (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B) (shift in production or services to a foreign country) of section 222 have not been met.
After notice of the petitions was published in the
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
The following determinations terminating investigations were issued because the petitions are the subject of ongoing investigations under petitions filed earlier covering the same petitioners.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on June 7, 2016, applicable to workers of Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing, Bryan, Ohio. The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in production of construction and mining tires.
The review shows that on June 7, 2016, a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance was issued for all workers of Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing, Bryan, Ohio, separated, or threatened with worker separations on or after March 8, 2015 through June 7, 2018.
In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the March 8, 2015 impact date established for TA-W-91,567, to read February 20, 2016 (TA-W-91,567) and March 8, 2015 (TA-W-91,567A).
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-91,567 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio (TA-W-91,567), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 20, 2016 through June 7, 2018, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended;
AND,
All workers of Per Mar Security Services and Elwood Staffing, working on-site at Titan Tire Corporation of Bryan, a subsidiary of Titan International, Inc., Bryan, Ohio (TA-W-91,567A), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 8, 2015 through June 7, 2018, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on September 18, 2015, applicable to workers of Northshore Mining, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., Silver Bay, Minnesota. The Department's notice of determination was published in the
At the request of a state workforce office, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of iron ore pellets (magnetite and hematite).
The state workforce office reports that on-site leased workers from Silver Bay Power Company should be included in the certification. The investigation revealed that the workers from Silver Bay Power Company were on-site and under the operational control of Northshore Mining, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., Silver Bay, Minnesota.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-86,065F is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Northshore Mining, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Silver Bay Power Company, Silver Bay, Minnesota who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 4, 2014 through September 18, 2017, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on date of certification through two years from the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than November 21, 2016.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than November 21, 2016.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5428, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
33 TAA petitions instituted between 8/8/16 and 8/19/16
Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension and revision of the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Information Collections: Pertaining to Special Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501
This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. A copy of the proposed information request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
You may submit comments identified by Control Number 1235-0001, by either one of the following methods:
Robert Waterman, Compliance Specialist, Division of Regulations, Legislation, and Interpretation, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-3502, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-0406 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of this notice may be obtained in alternative formats (Large Print, Braille, Audio Tape, or Disc), upon request, by calling (202) 693-0023 (not a toll-free number). TTY/TTD callers may dial toll-free (877) 889-5627 to obtain information or request materials in alternative formats.
The FLSA also requires that the Secretary of Labor, to the extent necessary to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities, provide certificates authorizing the employment of full-time students at not less than 85 percent of the applicable minimum wage or less than $1.60, whichever is higher, in (1) retail or service establishments and agriculture (29 U.S.C. 214(b)(1); 29 CFR 519.11(a)). The FLSA and the regulations set forth the application requirements as well as the terms and conditions for the employment of full-time students at subminimum wages under certificates and temporary authorization to employ such students at subminimum wages. The subminimum wage programs are designed to increase employment opportunities for full-time students.
• 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;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
• 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;
• 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,
Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Application for Approval of a Representative's Fee in Black Lung Claim Proceedings Conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor (CM-972). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before January 9, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
* 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,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection: Operator Response to Schedule for Submission of Additional Evidence (CM-2970) and Operator Response to Notice of Claim (CM-2970a). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before January 9, 2017.
Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email
The Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation administers the Black Lung Benefits Act (30 U.S.C. 901
The Department of Labor 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,
The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently-approved information collection in order to carry out its responsibility to administer the Black Lung Benefits Act.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant an exclusive license.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive license, in the field of use of human and/or animal healthcare, in the Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Hong Kong, European Union (EPO), India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, United States and Vietnam, to practice the inventions described and claimed in Patent Cooperative Treaty (PCT) Application Number PCT/US15/20964 and national/regional phase patent applications resulting therefrom, titled “Infrasonic Stethoscope for Monitoring Physiological Processes,” NASA Case Number LAR-18509-1-PCT, to Infrasonix Inc., having its principal place of business in Lawrenceville, GA. Certain patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen (15) days of the date of this published notice will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license.
Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, VA 23681; (757) 864-3221 (phone), (757) 864-9190 (fax).
Andrea Z. Warmbier, Patent Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Langley Research Center, MS 30, Hampton, VA 23681; (757) 864-7686; Fax: (757) 864-9190. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556.
NSF 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.
PREEVENTS is intended to encourage new scientific directions in the domains of natural hazards and extreme events. PREEVENTS will consider proposals for conferences that will foster development of interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary communities required to address complex questions
In addition to standard NSF annual and final report requirements, PIs for all PREEVENTS Track 1 awards will be required to submit to NSF a public report that summarizes the conference activities, attendance, and outcomes; describes scientific and/or technical challenges that remain to be overcome in the areas discussed during the conference; and identifies specific next steps to advance knowledge in the areas of natural hazards and extreme events that were considered during the conference. These reports will be made publicly available via the NSF Web site, and are intended to foster nascent interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary communities and to enable growth of new scientific directions.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft environmental impact statement; public meeting and request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the construction permit application submitted by Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) for the NWMI Medical Radioisotope Production Facility (NWMI facility). The proposed NWMI facility would be located in Columbia, Missouri. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (issuance of the construction permit) include no action, an alternative site, and two alternative technologies. The NRC staff plans to hold a public meeting during the public comment period to present an overview of the draft EIS and to accept public comments on the document.
Submit comments by December 29, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Drucker, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6223; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0235 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:
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2013-0235 in the subject line of your comment submission, to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that
The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft EIS for the construction permit for the proposed NWMI facility. This draft EIS includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The preliminary recommendation is that after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the NRC staff recommends, the issuance of the requested construction permit to NWMI, unless safety issues mandate otherwise.
The NRC staff will hold a public meeting prior to the close of the public comment period to present an overview of the draft EIS for the proposed construction permit and to accept public comment on the document. The meeting will be held on December 6, 2016, at the Holiday Inn Columbia-East, 915 Port Way, Columbia, Missouri 65201. The meeting will convene at 6:00 p.m. and will continue until approximately 8:00 p.m., as necessary. The meeting will be transcribed and will include: (1) A presentation of the contents of the draft EIS; and (2) the opportunity for interested government agencies, organizations, and individuals to provide comments on the draft EIS. Additionally, the NRC staff will host an informal discussion 1 hour before the start of the meeting at the same location. No comments on the draft EIS will be accepted during the informal discussion. To be considered in the final EIS, comments must be provided either at the transcribed public meeting or submitted in writing by the comment deadline identified in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing recent Postal Service filings for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's Web site (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
This notice will be published in the
November 4, 2016 at 1 p.m.
Washington, DC, via Teleconference.
1. Pricing.
2. Strategic Issues.
Julie S. Moore, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000, telephone (202) 268-4800.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend EDGA Rules regarding Members and associated persons of Members who are or become subject to a statutory disqualification.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 2.5 (Restrictions) to add language which provides the Exchange with the discretion to determine whether to permit a person to become a Member or an associated person of a Member or continue as a Member or in association with a Member on the Exchange.
Currently, Rule 2.5 restricts any persons from becoming a Member or continuing as a Member where (1) such person is other than a natural person and is not a registered broker or dealer, (2) such person is a natural person who is not either a registered broker or dealer or associated with a registered broker or dealer, (3) such person is subject to a statutory disqualification,
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes below are substantially
The Exchange first proposes to amend the language of Rule 2.5 to give itself the discretion to determine if a restriction on a Member becoming or continuing on as a Member is appropriate. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that the limitations of Rule 2.5 are equally applicable to persons associated with Members as they are to Members.
The Exchange then proposes to amend Rule 2.5(a)(3) to delete the language that allows a person to become a Member or continue as a Member where, pursuant to Rules 19d-1, 19d-2, 19d-3 and 19h-1 of the Act,
The Exchange then proposes to add three more situations with regard to whether a person may become a Member or continue as a Member in any capacity on the Exchange. The additional restrictions are when: (1) Such person fails to meet any of the qualification requirements for becoming a Member or associated with a Member after approval thereof; (2) such person fails to meet any condition placed by the Exchange on such Member or association with a Member; and (3) such person violates any agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes these additions in order to allow the Exchange more discretion in its determination as to whether a person may become or continue as a Member or in association with a Member. The Exchange notes that the Exchange must act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange also proposes to add language with regard to a Member or associated person that becomes subject to a statutory disqualification under the Act. The proposed rule would allow a Member or associated person who becomes subject to a statutory disqualification and who wants to continue as a Member of the Exchange or in association with a Member, to submit a request to the Exchange seeking to continue as a Member or in association with a Member notwithstanding the statutory disqualification.
The Exchange also proposes to add language which allows Members and associated persons whose request to become a Member or associated with a Member is denied or conditioned, or any person whose association with a Member is denied or conditioned pursuant to the restrictions codified in Rule 2.5(a), and any Member or person associated with a Member who is not permitted to continue as a Member or be an associate with a Member or to which association is conditioned to seek review under the provisions of the Exchange Rules relating to adverse actions.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .05, which will allow the Exchange to waive the provisions of Rule 2.5 when a proceeding is pending before another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to determine whether to permit a Member or associated person to continue membership or association notwithstanding a statutory disqualification. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change is substantially similar to the comparable rules of the CBOE,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements above. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will better enable the Exchange to use its discretion in determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person. Because of the discretionary language and additional restrictions, the Exchange may consider additional circumstances when determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that Proposed Rule 2.5(c) regarding any person or Member's ability to appeal a denied or conditioned request to become or continue as a Member or to associate with a Member is reasonable because it provides a fair procedure for the Members and persons associated with Members pursuant to Rule 7.6 (Summary Suspension of Exchange Services).
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding the waiver of the provisions of Rule 2.5 will better enable the Exchange to focus Exchange resources on other matters while another SRO is determining whether to permit a Member or associated person to become or continue being a Member or associated person on the exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes is it reasonable to remove language in Rule 2.5(a)(3) because the Exchange is eliminating any potential for confusion
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. As noted above, although the proposal will provide the Exchange with additional discretionary authority with respect to potential Members of the Exchange, the Exchange is bound by the Act to act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend BYX Rules regarding Members and associated persons of Members who are or become subject to a statutory disqualification.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 2.5 (Restrictions) to add language which provides the Exchange with the discretion to determine whether to permit a person to become a Member or an associated person of a Member or continue as a Member or in association with a Member on the Exchange.
Currently, Rule 2.5 restricts any persons from becoming a Member or continuing as a Member where (1) such person is other than a natural person and is not a registered broker or dealer, (2) such person is a natural person who is not either a registered broker or dealer or associated with a registered broker or dealer, (3) such person is subject to a statutory disqualification,
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes below are substantially similar to the rules of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”),
The Exchange first proposes to amend the language of Rule 2.5 to give itself the discretion to determine if a restriction on a Member becoming or continuing on as a Member is appropriate. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that the limitations of Rule 2.5 are equally applicable to persons associated with Members as they are to Members.
The Exchange then proposes to amend Rule 2.5(a)(3) to delete the language that allows a person to become a Member or continue as a Member where, pursuant to Rules 19d-1, 19d-2, 19d-3 and 19h-1 of the Act,
The Exchange then proposes to add three more situations with regard to whether a person may become a Member or continue as a Member in any capacity on the Exchange. The additional restrictions are when: (1) Such person fails to meet any of the qualification requirements for becoming a Member or associated with a Member after approval thereof; (2) such person fails to meet any condition placed by the Exchange on such Member or association with a Member; and (3) such person violates any agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes these additions in order to allow the Exchange more discretion in its determination as to whether a person may become or continue as a Member or in association with a Member. The Exchange notes that the Exchange must act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange also proposes to add language with regard to a Member or associated person that becomes subject to a statutory disqualification under the Act. The proposed rule would allow a Member or associated person who becomes subject to a statutory disqualification and who wants to continue as a Member of the Exchange or in association with a Member, to submit a request to the Exchange seeking to continue as a Member or in association with a Member notwithstanding the statutory disqualification.
The Exchange also proposes to add language which allows Members and associated persons whose request to become a Member or associated with a Member is denied or conditioned, or any person whose association with a Member is denied or conditioned pursuant to the restrictions codified in Rule 2.5(a), and any Member or person associated with a Member who is not permitted to continue as a Member or be an associate with a Member or to which association is conditioned to seek review under the provisions of the Exchange Rules relating to adverse actions.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .05, which will allow the Exchange to waive the provisions of Rule 2.5 when a proceeding is pending before another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to determine whether to permit a Member or associated person to continue membership or association notwithstanding a statutory disqualification. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change is substantially similar to the comparable rules of the CBOE,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements above. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will better enable the Exchange to use its discretion in determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person. Because of the discretionary language and additional restrictions, the Exchange may consider additional circumstances when determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that Proposed Rule 2.5(c) regarding any person or Member's ability to appeal a denied or conditioned request to become or continue as a Member or to associate with a Member is reasonable because it provides a fair procedure for the Members and persons associated with Members pursuant to Rule 7.6 (Summary Suspension of Exchange Services).
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding the waiver of the provisions of Rule 2.5 will better enable the Exchange to focus Exchange resources on other matters while another SRO is determining whether to permit a Member or associated person to become or continue being a Member or associated person on the exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes is it reasonable to remove language in Rule 2.5(a)(3) because the Exchange is eliminating any potential for confusion by simplifying the Exchange Rules, ensuring that Members, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's Rulebook.
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. As noted above, although the proposal will provide the Exchange with additional discretionary authority with respect to potential Members of the Exchange, the Exchange is bound by the Act to act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act” or “Exchange Act”)
The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed amendment to MSRB Rule A-4, on meetings of the Board, to amend the requirements regarding the formation of a quorum (the “proposed rule change”). The MSRB has designated the proposed rule change as concerned solely with the administration of the self-regulatory organization under paragraph (f)(3) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web site at
In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”)
The MSRB has adopted administrative rules that pertain to the operation and administration of the Board, which are identified by the prefix A,
The MSRB proposes to amend Rule A-4(c) to incorporate a requirement that at least one member of any Board group constituting a quorum be an advisor representative. The proposed rule change ensures representation of all categories of persons required to be members of the Board in any quorum established under Rule A-4. The MSRB also proposes minor technical amendments to Rule A-4(c) to clarify the provision.
The MSRB has adopted the proposed rule change pursuant to Sections 15B(b)(1) and (2) of the Exchange Act,
Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Act
Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Eleventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE LLC”). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes to add to the rules of the Exchange the Eleventh Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE LLC (the “Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement”).
In September 2015, the Exchange filed the Eighth Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of NYSE LLC (the “Eighth NYSE Operating Agreement”) as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act because NYSE LLC has a wholly-owned subsidiary, NYSE Market (DE), Inc., which owns a majority interest in NYSE Amex Options LLC (“NYSE Amex Options”), a facility of the Exchange.
On October 6, 2016, NYSE LLC filed on an immediately effective basis to amend Section 4.05 of the Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement regarding the use of regulatory assets, fees, fines and penalties, and to make additional, non-substantive edits.
The Exchange is accordingly filing to remove the obsolete Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act, and replace it with the Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement as a “rule of the exchange” under Section 3(a)(27) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would contribute to the orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the Act and comply and enforce compliance by its members and persons associated with its members, with the provisions of the Act because, by removing the obsolete Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement and making the Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement a rule of the Exchange, the Exchange would be ensuring that its rules remain consistent with the NYSE LLC operating agreement in effect.
The Exchange notes that, as with the Tenth NYSE Operating Agreement, it would be required to file any changes to the Eleventh NYSE Operating Agreement with the Commission as a proposed rule change.
The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely with ensuring that the Commission will have the ability to enforce the Act with respect to NYSE Amex Options and its direct and indirect parent entities.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend BZX Rules regarding Members and associated persons of Members who are or become subject to a statutory disqualification.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 2.5 (Restrictions) to add language which provides the Exchange with the discretion to determine whether to permit a person to become a Member or an associated person of a Member or continue as a Member or in association with a Member on the Exchange.
Currently, Rule 2.5 restricts any persons from becoming a Member or continuing as a Member where (1) such person is other than a natural person and is not a registered broker or dealer, (2) such person is a natural person who is not either a registered broker or dealer or associated with a registered broker or dealer, (3) such person is subject to a statutory disqualification,
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes below are substantially similar to the rules of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”),
The Exchange first proposes to amend the language of Rule 2.5 to give itself the discretion to determine if a restriction on a Member becoming or continuing on as a Member is appropriate. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that the limitations of Rule 2.5 are equally applicable to persons associated with Members as they are to Members.
The Exchange then proposes to amend Rule 2.5(a)(3) to delete the language that allows a person to become a Member or continue as a Member where, pursuant to Rules 19d-1, 19d-2, 19d-3 and 19h-1 of the Act,
The Exchange then proposes to add three more situations with regard to whether a person may become a Member or continue as a Member in any capacity on the Exchange. The additional restrictions are when: (1) Such person fails to meet any of the qualification requirements for becoming a Member or associated with a Member after approval thereof; (2) such person fails to meet any condition placed by the Exchange on such Member or association with a Member; and (3) such person violates any agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes these additions in order to allow the Exchange more discretion in its determination as to whether a person may become or continue as a Member or in association with a Member. The Exchange notes that the Exchange must act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange also proposes to add language with regard to a Member or associated person that becomes subject to a statutory disqualification under the Act. The proposed rule would allow a Member or associated person who becomes subject to a statutory disqualification and who wants to continue as a Member of the Exchange or in association with a Member, to submit a request to the Exchange seeking to continue as a Member or in association with a Member notwithstanding the statutory disqualification.
The Exchange also proposes to add language which allows Members and associated persons whose request to become a Member or associated with a Member is denied or conditioned, or any person whose association with a Member is denied or conditioned pursuant to the restrictions codified in Rule 2.5(a), and any Member or person associated with a Member who is not permitted to continue as a Member or be an associate with a Member or to which association is conditioned to seek review under the provisions of the Exchange Rules relating to adverse actions.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .05, which will allow the Exchange to waive the provisions of Rule 2.5 when a proceeding is pending before another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to determine whether to permit a Member or associated person to continue membership or association notwithstanding a statutory disqualification. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change is substantially similar to the comparable rules of the CBOE,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements above. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will better enable the Exchange to use its discretion in determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person. Because of the discretionary language and additional restrictions, the Exchange may consider additional circumstances when determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that Proposed Rule 2.5(c) regarding any person or Member's ability to appeal a denied or conditioned request to become or continue as a Member or to associate with a Member is reasonable because it provides a fair procedure for the Members and persons associated with Members pursuant to Rule 7.6 (Summary Suspension of Exchange Services).
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding the waiver of the provisions of Rule 2.5 will better enable the Exchange to focus Exchange resources on other matters while another SRO is determining whether to permit a Member or associated person to become or continue being a Member or associated person on the exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes is it reasonable to remove language in Rule 2.5(a)(3) because the Exchange is eliminating any potential for confusion by simplifying the Exchange Rules, ensuring that Members, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's Rulebook.
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. As noted above, although the proposal will provide the Exchange with additional discretionary authority with respect to potential Members of the Exchange, the Exchange is bound by the Act to act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange filed a proposal to amend EDGX Rules regarding Members and associated persons of Members who are or become subject to a statutory disqualification.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 2.5 (Restrictions) to add language which provides the Exchange with the discretion to determine whether to permit a person to become a Member or an associated person of a Member or continue as a Member or in association with a Member on the Exchange.
Currently, Rule 2.5 restricts any persons from becoming a Member or continuing as a Member where (1) such person is other than a natural person and is not a registered broker or dealer, (2) such person is a natural person who is not either a registered broker or dealer or associated with a registered broker or dealer, (3) such person is subject to a statutory disqualification,
The Exchange notes that the proposed rule changes below are substantially similar to the rules of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”),
The Exchange first proposes to amend the language of Rule 2.5 to give itself the discretion to determine if a restriction on a Member becoming or continuing on as a Member is appropriate. The Exchange also proposes to make clear that the limitations of Rule 2.5 are equally applicable to persons associated with Members as they are to Members.
The Exchange then proposes to amend Rule 2.5(a)(3) to delete the language that allows a person to become a Member or continue as a Member where, pursuant to Rules 19d-1, 19d-2, 19d-3 and 19h-1 of the Act,
The Exchange then proposes to add three more situations with regard to whether a person may become a Member or continue as a Member in any capacity on the Exchange. The additional restrictions are when: (1) Such person fails to meet any of the qualification requirements for becoming a Member or associated with a Member after approval thereof; (2) such person fails to meet any condition placed by the Exchange on such Member or association with a Member; and (3) such person violates any agreement with the Exchange. The Exchange proposes these additions in order to allow the Exchange more discretion in its determination as to whether a person may become or continue as a Member or in association with a Member. The Exchange notes that the Exchange must act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange also proposes to add language with regard to a Member or associated person that becomes subject to a statutory disqualification under the Act. The proposed rule would allow a Member or associated person who becomes subject to a statutory disqualification and who wants to continue as a Member of the Exchange or in association with a Member, to submit a request to the Exchange seeking to continue as a Member or in association with a Member notwithstanding the statutory disqualification.
The Exchange also proposes to add language which allows Members and associated persons whose request to become a Member or associated with a Member is denied or conditioned, or any person whose association with a Member is denied or conditioned pursuant to the restrictions codified in Rule 2.5(a), and any Member or person associated with a Member who is not permitted to continue as a Member or be an associate with a Member or to which association is conditioned to seek review under the provisions of the Exchange Rules relating to adverse actions.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add Interpretation and Policy .05, which will allow the Exchange to waive the provisions of Rule 2.5 when a proceeding is pending before another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) to determine whether to permit a Member or associated person to continue membership or association notwithstanding a statutory disqualification. The Exchange notes that this proposed rule change is substantially similar to the comparable rules of the CBOE,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements above. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed changes will better enable the Exchange to use its discretion in determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person. Because of the discretionary language and additional restrictions, the Exchange may consider additional circumstances when determining whether a person may become or continue as a Member or associated person on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that Proposed Rule 2.5(c) regarding any person or Member's ability to appeal a denied or conditioned request to become or continue as a Member or to associate with a Member is reasonable because it provides a fair procedure for the Members and persons associated with Members pursuant to Rule 7.6 (Summary Suspension of Exchange Services).
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change regarding the waiver of the provisions of Rule 2.5 will better enable the Exchange to focus Exchange resources on other matters while another SRO is determining whether to permit a Member or associated person to become or continue being a Member or associated person on the exchange.
Lastly, the Exchange believes is it reasonable to remove language in Rule 2.5(a)(3) because the Exchange is eliminating any potential for confusion by simplifying the Exchange Rules, ensuring that Members, regulators, and the public can more easily navigate the Exchange's Rulebook.
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. As noted above, although the proposal will provide the Exchange with additional discretionary authority with respect to potential Members of the Exchange, the Exchange is bound by the Act to act consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest and is prohibited from unfairly discriminating against Members or prospective Members.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from Members or other interested parties.
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
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding (1) payment of compensation and rebates, and (2) research analyst attestation requirements in order to harmonize with certain Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) rules and make other conforming changes. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The Exchange proposes amending its rules concerning (1) payment of compensation and rebates, and (2) research analyst attestation requirements in order to harmonize with certain FINRA rules and make other conforming changes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to:
• Delete Rule 353—Equities (Rebates and Compensation),
• delete Rule 351—Equities (Reporting Requirements) (including Supplementary Material .11 and .12) and amend Rules 472—Equities (Communications With The Public) and 9217 (Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Rule 9216(b)) to harmonize with FINRA's rules regarding annual attestation requirements for research analysts; and
• make certain technical and conforming changes.
In 2007, the Exchange's affiliate the New York Stock Exchange LLC
In order to reduce regulatory duplication and relieve firms that are members of the Exchange, the NYSE and FINRA of conflicting or unnecessary regulatory burdens, FINRA has been reviewing and amending the NASD and FINRA Incorporated NYSE Rules in order to create a consolidated FINRA rulebook.
As part of the rule consolidation process, in 2014, FINRA adopted FINRA Rule 2040 regarding payment of transaction-based compensation by members or associated persons to unregistered persons.
In the same filing, FINRA amended FINRA Rule 8311 to eliminate duplicative provisions in NASD IM-2420-2 (Continuing Commissions Policy)
In 2011, the Exchange adopted FINRA Rule 4530 (Reporting Requirements) as Rule 4530—Equities. FINRA Rule 4530 was modeled in part on former NYSE Rule 351(a)-(d) governing trade investigation reporting requirements, which the Exchange adopted as Rule 351—Equities.
In 2015, FINRA adopted FINRA Rule 2241 (Research Analysts and Research Reports), which deleted the requirement to attest annually that the firm has in place written supervisory policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of the rules, including the compensation committee review provision.
The attestation requirement in current Rule 351(f)—Equities is inconsistent with FINRA Rule 2241, thereby presenting member organizations that are also FINRA members with inconsistent requirements. Moreover, the Exchange has adopted FINRA Rules 3110, 3120 and 3130 as Rules 3110—Equities, 3120—Equities and 3130—Equities.
In light of FINRA's adoption of a comprehensive rule regarding the payment of transaction-based compensation, the Exchange proposes to adopt the text of FINRA Rule 2040 as NYSE MKT Rule 2040—Equities and delete Rule 353—Equities, the Exchange's current rule governing rebates and compensation. As noted above, the requirements of NYSE MKT Rule 353—Equities have been consolidated into the FINRA rule, making them redundant.
To reflect FINRA's recent amendments to FINRA Rule 8311, the Exchange proposes certain amendments to NYSE MKT Rule 8311 to fully harmonize the two rules.
Proposed Rule 8311(a) would clarify the scope of payments by member organizations to persons subject to suspension, revocation, cancellation, bar (each a “sanction”) or other disqualification and would provide that if a person is subject to a sanction or other disqualification, a member organization may not allow such person to be associated with it in any capacity that is inconsistent with the sanction imposed or disqualified status, including a clerical or ministerial capacity. Proposed Rule 8311(a) would further provide that a member organization may not pay or credit to any person subject to a sanction or disqualification, during the period of the sanction or disqualification or any period thereafter, any salary, commission, profit, or any other remuneration that the person might accrue, not just earn, during the period of the sanction or disqualification. The Exchange also proposes to add a new sentence to proposed Rule 8311(a) providing that a member organization may make payments or credits to a person subject to a sanction that are consistent with the scope of activities permitted under the sanction where the sanction solely limits an associated person from conducting specified activities (such as a suspension from acting in a principal capacity) or to a disqualified person that has been approved (or is otherwise permitted pursuant to Exchange rules and the federal securities laws) to associate with a member organization.
Further, the Exchange proposes to add a new subsection (b) and new proposed Supplementary Material .01 that, with the exception of conforming references to “members” in the text of FINRA Rule 8311 to “member organizations” and references to “FINRA” to “the Exchange,” would be identical to the recent amendments to FINRA Rule 8311.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Rule complements proposed Rule 2040 and would harmonize the Exchange's rules on payments by member organizations to persons subject to suspension, revocation, cancellation, bar or other disqualification.
In light of FINRA's elimination of an annual attestation requirement when it adopted FINRA Rule 2241,
The Exchange proposes to mark the entire Rule as “Reserved” and delete headings (a) through (e), which have no content and are marked “Reserved”.
The Exchange proposes the following conforming changes. First, the Exchange would substitute the term “member organization” for “member”
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
Similarly, deleting Rule 351(f)—Equities and Supplementary Material .11 and .12 as inconsistent with FINRA Rule 2241 would eliminate inconsistent annual attestation requirements, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient regulatory compliance and promoting just and equitable principles of trade. The Exchange further believes that eliminating the annual attestation requirement would not be inconsistent with the Exchange's obligations under the Exchange Act to prevent fraudulent or manipulative acts and practices because Exchange member organizations are subject to the same supervisory requirements as FINRA member firms, including an annual certification requirement regarding compliance and supervisory processes set forth in Rule 3130—Equities. To the extent the Exchange has proposed changes that differ from the FINRA version of the Exchange rules, such changes are generally technical in nature and do not change the substance of the proposed rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed conforming changes will update and add specificity to the Exchange's rules, which will promote just and equitable principles of trade and help to protect investors.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
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:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1) of Title VIII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act entitled the Payment, Clearing, and Settlement Supervision Act of 2010 (“Clearing Supervision Act”)
This Advance Notice consists of modifications to (i) the DTC Rules, By-laws and Organization Certificate (“Rules”),
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the Advance Notice and discussed any comments it received on the Advance Notice. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A and B below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
DTC has not solicited and does not intend to solicit comments regarding the Proposal. DTC has not received any unsolicited written comments from
DTC is proposing to (i) mitigate risk to DTC and Participants relating to intra-day reversals of processed MMI Obligations in the event of an IPA's RTP with respect to maturing obligations (“Maturing Obligations”)
When an Issuer issues MMI Securities at DTC, the IPA for that Issuer sends issuance instructions to DTC electronically, which results in crediting the applicable MMI Securities to the DTC Account of the IPA. These MMI Securities are then Delivered to the Accounts of applicable Participants that are purchasing the Issuance in accordance with their purchase amounts. These purchasing Participants typically include broker/dealers or banks, acting as custodians for institutional investors. The IPA Delivery instructions may be free of payment or, most often, Delivery Versus Payment. Deliveries of MMI are processed pursuant to the same Rules and the applicable Procedures
When MMI Securities mature, the Maturity Presentment process is initiated automatically by DTC on maturity date, starting at approximately 6:00 a.m. Eastern Time (“ET”), for Delivery of matured MMI Securities from the applicable DTC Participants' Accounts to the applicable IPA Accounts. This automated process electronically sweeps all maturing positions of MMI Securities from Participant Accounts and debits the Settlement Account of the applicable IPA for the amount of the Maturing Obligations for Presentments for the Acronym and credits the Settlement Accounts of the Deliverers. In accordance with the Rules, payment is due from the IPA for settlement to the extent, if any, that the IPA has a Net Debit Balance in its Settlement Account at end-of-day.
With regard to DTC net settlement, MMI Issuers and IPAs commonly consider the primary source of payments for Maturing Obligations of MMI Securities to be funded by the proceeds of Issuances of the same Acronym by that Issuer on the same Business Day. Because Presentments are currently processed automatically at DTC, IPAs have the option to refuse to pay for Maturing Obligations to protect against the possibility that an IPA may not be able to fund settlement because it has not received funds from the relevant Issuer. An IPA that refuses payment for a Presentment (
Under the current Rules, the effect of an RTP is to instruct DTC to reverse all processed Deliveries of that Acronym, including Issuances, related funds credits and debits, and Presentments. This late day reversal of processed (but not yet settled) transactions may override DTC's risk management controls (
Currently, to mitigate the risks associated with an RTP, DTC Rules and the Settlement Guide provide for the LPNC risk management control. DTC withholds credit intra-day from each Participant that has a Presentment in the amount of the aggregate of the two largest credits with respect to an Acronym. The LPNC is not included in the calculation of the Participant's Collateral Monitor or its Net Debit Balance. This provides protection in the event that MMI Obligations are reversed by DTC as a result of an RTP.
DTC's Rules and Procedures relating to settlement processing for the MMI Program
The Proposal would amend the Rules and the Settlement Guide to eliminate provisions for intra-day reversals of processed MMI Obligations based on an IPA's RTP or Issuer insolvency. In addition, the Proposal would amend the Distributions Guide to make changes to text relating to the processing of Income Presentments so that it is consistent with the changes proposed in the Settlement Guide in that regard, as more fully described below.
Pursuant to the Proposal, DTC would no longer automatically process Presentments (and Issuances and related deliveries). Rather, except as noted below, DTC would only process these transactions after an acknowledgment (“MMI Funding Acknowledgment”) is made by the IPA to DTC whereby either: (i) The value of receiver-approved
DTC anticipates that the Proposal would generally maintain the volume of transactions processed today in terms of the total number and value of transactions that have passed position and risk controls throughout the processing day. However, because of the requirement for the IPA to provide an MMI Funding Acknowledgement prior to processing of an Acronym, the reason why transactions do not complete during the processing day would shift. It is expected that the value and volume of MMI transactions recycling for risk management controls during the late morning and afternoon time periods would be reduced as a result of MMI transactions being held outside of the processing system awaiting an MMI Funding Acknowledgement decision. The non-MMI transactions and fully funded MMI transactions would also likely have a reduction in blockage from risk management controls as a result of the elimination of the LPNC control. The elimination of the LPNC control would no longer withhold billions of dollars of settlement credits until 3:05 p.m. ET as it does today, which would in turn permit these transactions to complete earlier in the day.
An IPA would make an MMI Funding Acknowledgment using a new Decision Making Application (“DMA”). When an MMI Funding Acknowledgement has occurred, it would constitute the IPA's instruction to DTC to attempt to process transactions in the Acronym. At this point, if the IPA has acknowledged that it would fully fund the Acronym, then the transactions would be sent to the processing system and attempted against position and risk management controls. If the IPA provides an MMI Funding Acknowledgement for only partial funding of the entire amount of Presentments for an Acronym, DTC would test risk management controls of Deliverers and Receivers with respect to that Acronym to determine whether risk management controls would be satisfied by all Deliverers and Receivers of the Acronym and determine whether all parties maintain adequate position to complete the applicable transactions,
As indicated above, if partial funding from the IPA is necessary, then transactions would be routed to MMI Optimization. Generally, in MMI Optimization, all Deliverers and Receivers of the Acronym must satisfy risk management controls and delivering Participants must hold sufficient position, in order for the transactions in that Acronym to be processed. However, as long as the Issuances that can satisfy Deliverer and Receiver risk controls for that Acronym are equal to or greater than the Maturing Presentments of that Acronym, the applicable transactions (
If there is no MMI Funding Acknowledgment for the IPA for an Acronym for which Maturing Obligations are due by 3:00 p.m. ET on that day and/or DTC is aware that the Issuer of an Acronym is insolvent (“Acronym Payment Failure”), then DTC would not process transactions in the Acronym.
In the event of an Acronym Payment Failure, DTC would (i) prevent further issuance and maturity activity for the Acronym in DTC's system, (ii) prevent Deliveries of MMI Securities of the Acronym on failure date and halt all activity in that Acronym, (iii) set the Collateral Value of the MMI Securities in the Acronym to zero for purposes of calculating the Collateral Monitor of any affected Participant, and (iv) notify Participants of the Acronym Payment Failure. Notification would be made through a DTC broadcast through the current process.
Notwithstanding the occurrence of an Acronym Payment Failure, the IPA would remain liable for funding pursuant to any MMI Funding Acknowledgment previously provided for that Business Day.
A “Temporary Acronym Payment Failure” with respect to Income Presentments would occur when an IPA notifies DTC that it temporarily refuses to pay Income Presentments for the Acronym (typically due to an Issuer's inability to fund Income Presentments on that day). A Temporary Acronym Payment Failure would only be initiated if there are no Maturity Presentments, Principal Presentments and/or Reorganization Presentments on that Business Day. DTC expects the Issuer and/or IPA to resolve such a situation by the next Business Day. In the event of a Temporary Acronym Payment Failure, DTC would (i) temporarily devalue to zero all of the Issuer's MMI Securities for purposes of calculating
An IPA would not be able to avail itself of a Temporary Acronym Payment Failure for the same Acronym on consecutive Business Days.
Also, in light of the proposed elimination of intra-day reversals of processed MMI Obligations, DTC would also eliminate the RVPNA control. The RVPNA control is provided for in the Settlement Guide and implements current Section 1(c) of Rule 9(B). RVPNA is used to prevent a Participant from Delivering free of value or undervalued any MMI Securities received versus payment on the same Business Day.
DTC would amend the text of Rule 1 (Definitions), Rule 9(A) (Transactions in Securities and Money Payments), Rule 9(B) (Transactions in Eligible Securities), Rule 9(C) (Transactions in MMI Securities), the Settlement Guide and the Distributions Guide to reflect the proposed changes described above. Specifically:
(i) Rule 1 would be amended to:
a. Delete the definition of LPNC; and
b. Add a cross-reference to indicate that the terms MMI Funding Acknowledgment and MMI Optimization would be defined in Section 1 of Rule 9(C).
(ii) Rule 9(A) would be amended to add text providing that an instruction to DTC from a Participant for Delivery Versus Payment of MMI Securities pursuant to Rule 9(C) shall not be effective unless and until applicable conditions specified in Rule 9(C) as set forth below have been satisfied.
(iii) Rule 9(B) would be amended to:
a. Eliminate text referencing the LPNC;
b. Eliminate the provision precluding DTC from acting on an instruction for Delivery of MMI Securities subject of an Incomplete Transaction if the instruction involves a Free Delivery, Pledge or Release of Securities or a Delivery, Pledge or Release of Securities substantially undervalued; and
c. Add text providing that an instruction to DTC from a Participant for Delivery Versus Payment of MMI Securities pursuant to Rule 9(C) shall not be effective unless and until the applicable conditions specified in Rule 9(C) described below have been satisfied.
(iv) Rule 9(C) would be amended to:
a. Add the definitions of MMI Funding Acknowledgment and MMI Optimization to reflect the meaning of these terms as described above;
b. Add text that Delivery Versus Payment of MMI Securities would be affected in accordance with Rules 9(A), 9(B) and the Settlement Guide in addition to Rule 9(C);
c. Add text indicating that instructions by a Presenting Participant for a Presentment or Delivery of MMI Securities would be deemed to be given only when any applicable MMI Funding Acknowledgment has been received by DTC;
d. Remove conditions and references relating to reversals of processed MMI Obligations;
e. Set forth conditions for the processing of Presentments, including:
i. The requirement for the IPA to provide an MMI Funding Acknowledgment, except in the case where the aggregate amount of Issuances exceeds Presentments;
ii. Satisfaction of risk management controls and RAD;
iii. That an instruction to DTC with respect to an Issuance or Presentment shall become effective upon satisfaction of the provisions described in i. and ii. immediately above;
iv. That DTC shall comply with an effective instruction;
v. That the IPA acknowledges and agrees that DTC would process instructions with respect to Issuances and Presentments as described above and that the IPA's obligations in this regard are irrevocable; and
vi. That if the IPA notifies DTC in writing of its insolvency, or if DTC otherwise has notice, or if the IPA issues a Payment Refusal for the Acronym, then the IPA would not be required to acknowledge its obligations and DTC would not be required to process any further instructions with respect to the applicable Acronym;
f. Eliminate references to MMI Securities being devalued in the event of an RTP because in the event of any payment failure by the IPA, DTC would then revert to the Acronym Payment Failure Process described below; and
g. Delete a reference indicating that DTC's Failure to Settle Procedure includes special provisions for MMI Securities.
(v) The Settlement Guide would be amended to:
a. Delete the description of, and all references and provisions related to, LPNC;
b. Delete: (A) The definition of RVPNA, (B) a provision that transactions for MMI Securities that are deemed RVPNA would recycle pending release of the LPNC control at 3:05 p.m. ET, and (C) a note that MMI Securities received versus payment are not allowed to be freely moved until the LPNC control is released;
c. Add a description of “Unknown Rate” to provide for a placeholder in the Settlement Guide for references to an interest rate where payment of interest by an IPA to Receivers is scheduled but the interest rate to be paid is not known at the time;
d. Change the heading of the section currently named “Establishing Your Net Debit Cap” to “Limitation of Participant Net Debit Caps by Settling Banks” to reflect the context of that section more specifically;
e. Revise the Settlement Processing Schedule to:
i. Add a cutoff time of 2:30 p.m. ET for an IPA to replace the Unknown Rate with a final interest rate and state that the IPA must successfully transmit the final rate to DTC before 2:30 p.m. ET;
ii. Add a cutoff time of 2:55 p.m. ET after which Issuances and Presentments cannot be processed on the given Business Day because the conditions described above for processing of MMI Obligations have not been met;
iii. Remove a reference for a cutoff relating to reversals of MMI Obligations since reversals would no longer occur as described above;
iv. Define 3 p.m. ET as the cutoff time for any required MMI Funding Acknowledgements to be received in order for DTC to be able to process for a given Acronym that day;
v. Add at cutoff time of 3 p.m. ET for an IPA to notify DTC of a Temporary Acronym Payment Failure;
vi. Delete a reference to the release of LPNC controls as LPNC would no longer exist; and
vii. Clarify that a 3:10 p.m. ET cutoff after which CNS transactions that cannot be completed would be dropped from the system, also applies to valued transactions in non-MMI Securities and fully paid for and secondary MMI Deliveries or Maturity Presentments;
f. Add a section describing MMI Processing to include a description of MMI Funding Acknowledgments and the MMI Optimization process as described above;
g. Revise the section referencing provisions for “Issuer Failure Processing” to instead describe Acronym Payment Failure Processing and Temporary Acronym Payment Failure Process, as these processes are described above, since the contingencies for processing a payment failure hinge on the failure of payment on an Acronym by an IPA regardless of whether it is ultimately caused by an Issuer insolvency or otherwise;
h. Remove a duplicate reference to the DTC contact number for Participants/IPAs to call in the event of an Acronym Payment Failure;
i. Remove the description of the “MMI IPA MP Pend” process which was designed to allow IPAs to minimize the impact of potential reversals of processed MMI Obligations; as such reversals would no longer occur; and
j. Change the name of the section named “Calculating Your Net Debit Cap” to “Calculation of Participant Net Debit Caps”.
(vi) The Distributions Guide would be amended to (i) delete language reflecting that Income Presentments are processed at the start-of-day, and (ii) add a brief description of the processing of Presentments as proposed above and provide a cross-reference to the Settlement Guide relating to MMI settlement processing.
(vii) The Proposal would also make technical and clarifying changes to the texts of the Rules and Settlement Guide for consistency throughout the texts in describing the concepts and terms set forth above, make corrections to grammar and spacing and edit text to provide for enhanced readability.
The Proposal would be implemented in phases whereby Acronyms would be migrated to be processed in accordance with the Proposal over a period of five months beginning in November 2016 and with all Acronyms expected to be implemented by the end of March 2017, except for the implementation of the elimination of the Rule and Settlement Guide provisions relating to RVPNA which elimination would not occur until all other aspects of the Proposal are implemented with respect to all Acronyms. DTC would announce phased implementation dates for the Proposal via Important Notice upon all applicable regulatory approval by the Commission.
As described above, the Proposal would amend the Rules and the Settlement Guide to: (i) Eliminate provisions for intra-day reversals of processed MMI Obligations based on an IPA's RTP or Issuer insolvency, (ii) impose a new requirement on IPAs to provide DTC an MMI Funding Acknowledgment, (iii) remove the LPNC risk management control; and (iv) implement MMI Optimization.
As noted above, under the current DTC Rules, intraday reversals of MMI Obligations may override DTC's risk management controls (
Pursuant to the Proposal, DTC would no longer automatically process Presentments (and Issuances and related deliveries). Rather, as applicable, DTC would only process these transactions after receiving an MMI Funding Acknowledgment from the IPA. In this regard, once an IPA provides an MMI Funding Acknowledgment, its ability to notify DTC of an RTP would be limited as it would not be allowed to reduce the amount of its obligation previously acknowledged that day.
Currently, the LPNC control exists to mitigate the risks associated with an RTP by withholding credit intra-day from each Participant in the amount of the aggregate of the two largest credits with respect to Presentment of an Acronym. DTC expects that the proposed elimination of the LPNC control and the attendant intraday withholding of credits would reduce the risk of intraday liquidity blockages within DTC's system for Participant activity, for both MMI and non-MMI transactions, because at any point intraday, Participants would have a true view of their Net Debit Balances or Net Credit Balances and be able to respond accordingly.
As described above, as applicable, DTC would test risk management controls of Deliverers and Receivers using the proposed MMI Optimization process with respect to the Acronym to determine whether risk management controls would be satisfied by all Deliverers and Receivers of the Acronym and determine whether all Deliverers maintain adequate position to complete the applicable transactions. As described above, the application of MMI Optimization to MMI transactions, as applicable, would facilitate timely processing of transactions under the proposal and reduce the risk to Participants that transactions may not settle due to failure to satisfy risk controls.
The proposed requirement for an IPA to provide DTC an MMI Funding Acknowledgment prior to DTC's processing of affected MMI transactions, as applicable, would replace DTC's current automatic processing of MMI Transactions. The fact that such transactions would not be processed until an MMI Funding Acknowledgment is provided by the IPA may create a risk of blockage of MMI transactions by Participants. However, DTC anticipates that the various aspects of the Proposal taken together would offset any such risk and reduce the risk of blockage overall for both MMI and non-MMI transactions because of the effect of (i) the removal of the LPNC control would
DTC believes that the Proposal is consistent with Section 805(b) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
DTC believes that the Proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Clearing Supervision Act because the elimination of reversals of MMI transactions would promote intraday settlement finality and protect end-of day settlement from the risk of the failure to settle by IPAs or affected Participants by removing the risk exposure due to the override of DTC's risk management controls (
DTC also believes that the Proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Clearing Supervision Act because the elimination of the risk that a Participant could incur a Net Debit Balance that exceeds DTC's risk controls caused by an intra-day reversal of processed (but not yet settled) MMI Obligations would promote both the safety and soundness of DTC's system and reduce systemic risks by (i) reducing the risk of a shortfall in a defaulting Participant's collateral available for DTC to use to satisfy the defaulting Participant's settlement obligations, and (ii) reducing the risk that a Participant default could impose a strain on DTC's liquidity resources and affect DTC's ability to complete system-wide settlement that day.
In addition, DTC believes that the Proposal would be consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(d)(12) promulgated under the Act.
Taking each of the above points collectively (
The proposed change may be implemented if the Commission does not object to the proposed change within 60 days of the later of (i) the date that the proposed change was filed with the Commission or (ii) the date that any additional information requested by the Commission is received,
Pursuant to Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
Here, as the Commission has not requested any additional information, the date that is 60 days after DTC filed the Advance Notice with the Commission is November 22, 2016. However, the Commission finds it appropriate to extend the review period of the Advance Notice, for an additional 60 days under Section 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to 806(e)(1)(H) of the Clearing Supervision Act,
The clearing agency shall post notice on its Web site of proposed changes that are implemented.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the Advance Notice is consistent with the Clearing Supervision Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7047 of the Exchange's transaction fees to institute a new fee for the distribution of data derived from Nasdaq Basic on third-party Web sites or other electronic platforms, as described further below.
The changes are being filed for immediate effectiveness and will become operative on October 20, 2016.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
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.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to introduce a new pricing model to keep pace with an evolving practice. Distributors have increasingly used Nasdaq Basic to make “Derived Data” available on a Web site or other electronic platform that is branded by a third party, or co-branded by a Distributor and a third party, and available to external subscribers.
“Derived Data” is pricing data or other information that is created in whole or in part from Nasdaq information, but which 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. The type of Derived Data subject to the proposed fee is taken from Nasdaq Basic, a proprietary data product that provides best bid and offer and last sale information for all U.S. exchange-listed stocks using data from the Nasdaq Market Center and the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility.
The Derived Data subject to the proposed fee is made available to subscribers on a “Hosted Display Solution”: A product, solution or capability provided by a Distributor in which the Distributor makes the Derived Data available on a platform that reflects either a brand of a third party, or is co-branded with a third party and a Distributor, and available for use by external subscribers of the third party or the Distributor. The Distributor maintains control of the application's data, entitlements and display.
The Hosted Display Solution may take a number of forms. For example, the Distributor may host a “Widget,” such as an iframe or applet, in which the Hosted Display Solution is a part or a subset of a Web site or platform. The Hosted Display Solution may also take the form of a “White Label,” in which the Distributor hosts or maintains the Web site or platform on behalf of a third-party entity. Although the specific forms may vary, Hosted Display Solutions allow Distributors to make Derived Data available on a platform that is branded with a third-party brand, or co-branded with a third party and a Distributor, for the use of external subscribers.
Derived Data on a Hosted Display Solution may be used for a number of different purposes, to be determined by the Distributor. Possible uses include the display of information or data, or the creation of derivative instruments, such as swaps,
The Exchange proposes a flat fee of $400 per month per Hosted Display Solution for each Distributor that makes Derived Data available on a Hosted Display Solution. The monthly fee will apply whenever such a Hosted Display Solution is employed at any time during the month. This fee will be in addition to the distributor fee owed for the distribution of Nasdaq Basic under Rule 7047(c)(1), as well as any fee that may be owed under Rule 7047(c)(2). Any Distributor that distributes Nasdaq data that is not Derived Data—
The fee is entirely optional, in that it applies only to Distributors that opt to use Derived Data from Nasdaq Basic to create a Hosted Display Solution, as described herein. It does not impact or raise the cost of any other Nasdaq product, nor does it increase the cost of Nasdaq Basic, except in instances where Derived Data is made available on a Hosted Display Solution.
Because “Derived Data” will be a defined term under the proposal, the Exchange also proposes replacing the phrase “data derived” in Rule 7047(c)(2) with the term “Derived Data.”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
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.”
Likewise, in
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'. . . .”
The Exchange believes that the introduction of a fee for the use of Derived Data on Hosted Display Solutions is reasonable because: (i) All proprietary data fees are constrained by the Exchange's need to compete for order flow; (ii) proprietary data fees are subject to market competition from substitute products; and (iii) the proposed fee will be constrained by downstream competition among Distributors and third-party firms. The Exchange does not currently have a specific fee for making Derived Data available on Hosted Display Solutions for external subscribers; the proposed fee will be $400 per month for any use of a Hosted Display Solution to display Derived Data at any time during that month. A Distributor who makes Derived Data available on a Hosted Display Solution would not be subject to the per-Subscriber or per-query user fees set forth in Rules 7047(b)(1)-(3) because Derived Data, by definition, cannot be reverse engineered to recreate the data that is fee-liable under those rules. This is in contrast to any firm that distributes Nasdaq data that is not Derived Data on a Hosted Display Solution, which would be subject to such user fees. The Exchange believes that this fee is an equitable allocation and is not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same fee to all similarly situated distributors.
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.
The proposed fee in this case applies to data derived from Nasdaq Basic, which is subject to competition from the NYSE, BATS, and other exchanges that offer similar products. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Market forces constrain the proposed fee in three specific respects. First, all fees related to Nasdaq Basic are constrained by competition among exchanges and other entities in attracting order flow. Firms make decisions regarding Nasdaq Basic and other proprietary data based on the total cost of interacting with the Exchange, and order flow would be harmed by the supracompetitive pricing of any proprietary data product. 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 and third parties for subscribers.
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
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, TracECN, BATS Trading and BATS/Direct Edge. 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 BATS. 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. As a result, the competition for order flow constrains the prices that platforms can charge for proprietary data products. Firms make decisions on how much and what types of data to consume based on the total cost of interacting with Nasdaq and other exchanges. Data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis. If the cost of the product exceeds its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it. A supracompetitive increase in the fees charged for either transactions or proprietary data has the potential to impair revenues from both products. In this manner, the competition for order flow will constrain prices for proprietary data products, including charges relating to Nasdaq Basic.
The price of data derived from Nasdaq Basic is 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 because they are substitutes; moreover, in cases where customers buy both products, they may shift the extent to which they purchase one or the other based on price changes. The SIP constrains the price of Nasdaq Basic because no purchaser would pay an excessive price for Nasdaq Basic when substitute data is also available from the SIP.
Proprietary data sold by other exchanges also constrain the price of Nasdaq Basic. NYSE and BATS, like Nasdaq, sell proprietary non-core data that include best bid and offer and last sale data. Customers do not typically purchase proprietary best bid and offer and last sale data from multiple exchanges. Other proprietary data products constrain the price of Nasdaq Basic because no customer would pay an excessive price for Nasdaq Basic when substitute data is available from other proprietary sources. The effectiveness of competition in constraining prices for Nasdaq Basic is demonstrated by the fact that the fee to distribute data derived from Nasdaq Basic to non-professional subscribers has remained unchanged since July 29, 2011.
The fee for making Derived Data available on a Hosted Display Solution is also constrained by competition among Distributors and third-party firms placing their brand names on Hosted Display Solutions. Distributors must compete for customers. Firms placing their brand on Hosted Display Solutions must compete for subscribers. If the price of Hosted Display Solutions were to exceed competitive levels, thereby placing Distributors and third party firms at a competitive disadvantage relative to firms that did not purchase Nasdaq products, Distributors and the third party firms would take their business elsewhere. There are no legal, regulatory, or other requirements restricting their ability to do so.
In summary, market forces constrain the proposed fee through competition for order flow, competition from substitute data products, and in the competition among Distributors and third party 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.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 4, 2016,
The Line consists of three segments: The Willits Segment, the Healdsburg Segment, and the Lombard Segment. (Pet. 2-3.) NCRA, the public agency created to preserve freight operations on the Line, holds the exclusive right to conduct freight operations over the Line. (Pet. 3.)
In 2011, NCRA and SMART entered into an Operating and Coordination Agreement (Agreement) for the Line. (Pet., Williams Decl. para. 1.) The Agreement gives SMART dispatching authority over the Lombard and Healdsburg segments and a portion of the Willits Segment. (Pet., Williams Decl., Ex. A at 4.) It defines dispatching as having the same meaning as in 49 CFR 241.5(1)(i). (Pet., Williams Decl., Ex. A at Ex. 1 at i.) The Agreement also contains a provision addressing hazardous materials, which states in part:
Neither Party shall use, generate, transport, handle or store Hardous Materials on the Subject Segments other than as may be used by the Party in its operations in the normal course of business or, in the case of NCRA, as may be transported by NCRA in its capacity as a common carrier by rail and in all events in accordance with Applicable Laws.
On July 28, 2016, NWPCo began transporting loaded liquid petroleum gas (LPG) tank cars to, and storing them at, the Schellville rail yard on the
In addition to a preliminary injunction, Petitioners request an order that SMART has no regulatory authority to precondition freight shipments. (Pet. at 7.) They state that due to SMART's actions, they are uncertain when, and if, they will be able to discharge their common carrier obligations. (
SMART contends
SMART claims that this is a contractual dispute, that the Board typically does not get involved in contractual disputes, and there is no reason for it to do so in this instance. (Reply 2.) Specifically, the issue of whether the Petitioners “can store the LPG-loaded tank cars on SMART's property is a question of contractual interpretation,” (
As the Board has stated, this case appears to raise a number of novel issues that require further briefing by the parties.
1. General requests:
a. A detailed map of the entire Northwestern Pacific Railroad Line and operations including, but not limited to, information about interchange locations and responsibilities, which carrier has what rights and where, and alternative locations for storage. Also include a description of the volume and type of traffic that moves over the Line.
b. As necessary, include comments on or corrections to the Board's written summaries of the October 6 and October 11 conference calls. The summaries are available on the Board's Web site as miscellaneous filings in the docket.
c. As necessary, the parties should include any factual updates that have occurred since the date of their last filings.
2. Regarding the common carrier obligation:
a. Assuming for the sake of argument that the contract reflects that NCRA agreed not to store hazardous materials at the Schellville yard, would such an agreement be consistent with NCRA's common carrier obligation under 49 U.S.C. 11101? Why or why not?
b. Does the storage of loaded LPG cars at the Schellville yard for an indeterminate period of time constitute “transportation by rail carrier” within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 10501? In answering this question, parties should discuss:
i. Whether the storage at Schellville is a service that NWPCo provides at the request of and/or for another railroad or a shipper, and how that service is marketed.
ii. The typical route, from origin to ultimate destination, for loaded LPG tank cars stored at the Schellville yard. Include a description of NWPCo's role in that movement.
iii. How long loaded LPG cars are typically scheduled to be stored at the Schellville yard. If there is no typical time period, provide a range of time the cars will be stored and a final date by which they would depart the yard for final destination.
iv. Evidence, such as bills of lading, demonstrating that NWPCo uses the Schellville yard to transport goods in interstate commerce as part of a rail movement.
c. What are the implications of SMART's residual common carrier obligation over portions of the Line, including the Lombard Segment?
3. Regarding federal preemption:
a. Does SMART's denial of track warrants for loaded LPG cars destined for the Schellville yard constitute “regulation” of rail transportation within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 10501(b)?
b. Assuming for the sake of argument that the contract reflects that NCRA agreed not to store loaded LPG cars at the Schellville yard, would such an agreement “unreasonably interfere” with interstate commerce? In answering this question, parties should:
i. Address
ii. Discuss the feasibility of NCRA/NWPCo storing loaded LPG tank cars elsewhere, either on tracks they currently own or lease or on tracks they could lease from other parties, or moving loaded LPG tank cars directly from their origin to their ultimate destination, thus avoiding entirely temporary storage at Schellville or elsewhere.
c. What effect, if any, does SMART's status as a governmental agency have on the preemption analysis?
As discussed above, the Petitioners and SMART have filed their initial pleadings.
1. The procedural schedule is as follows:
2. All filings and decisions in Docket No. NOR 42148 will be considered part of the record in Docket No. FD 36077.
3. Notice of this decision will be published in the
4. This decision is effective on its service date.
By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Susquehanna River Basin Commission.
Notice.
The Susquehanna River Basin Commission will hold its regular business meeting on December 8, 2016, in Annapolis, Maryland. Details concerning the matters to be addressed at the business meeting are contained in the Supplementary Information section of this notice.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 8, 2016, at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at Loews Annapolis Hotel, Powerhouse—Point Lookout Room (Third Floor), 126 West Street, Annapolis, MD 21401.
Jason E. Oyler, General Counsel, telephone: (717) 238-0423, ext. 1312; fax: (717) 238-2436.
The business meeting will include actions or presentations on the following items: (1) Informational presentation of interest to the Lower Susquehanna Subbasin area; (2) resolution concerning FY2018 federal funding of the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program; (3) ratification/approval of contracts/grants; (4) notice for Montage Mountain Resorts, LP project sponsor to appear and show cause before the Commission; (5) regulatory compliance matters for Panda Hummel Station LLC, Panda Liberty LLC, and Panda Patriot LLC; and (6) Regulatory Program projects.
Projects listed for Commission action are those that were the subject of a public hearing conducted by the Commission on November 3, 2016, and identified in the notice for such hearing, which was published in 81 FR 69182, October 5, 2016.
The public is invited to attend the Commission's business meeting. Comments on the Regulatory Program projects were subject to a deadline of November 14, 2016. Written comments pertaining to other items on the agenda at the business meeting may be mailed to the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 4423 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-1788, or submitted electronically through
Pub. L. 91-575, 84 Stat. 1509
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Request for public comments.
Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(d), notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from Madras Municipal Airport, in Madras, OR to waive the surplus property requirements for approximately 5.22 acres of airport property located at Madras Municipal Airport, in Madras, OR.
The subject property is currently under lease with Wilbur-Ellis Company. This property serves Wilbur Ellis Company and their Agribusiness Division well because of its close proximity to both the rail system (City rail spur and Burlington Northern Santa Fe main track) and Highway 97/26. From this location, they import, export and distribute various agricultural commodities throughout Central Oregon. This release will enable the City of Madras to complete a promise made in 1995 whereby the City agreed to diligently and aggressively pursue the approval of the United States of America to sell the 5.22 acres to Wilbur Ellis Company, if Wilbur Ellis were willing to relocate their company to the Madras community thereby providing much needed jobs. The estimated net proceeds from the subject property will be applied toward the City's current five-year airport capital improvement plan or to relocating a hangar at the airport that is called out to be moved in the airport master plan. It has been determined through study and master planning that the subject parcels will not be needed for aeronautical purposes.
Send comments on this document to Ms. Cayla Morgan, at the Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057, Telephone 425-227-2653.
Documents are available for review by appointment by contacting Ms. Cayla Morgan, Telephone 425-227-2653 or by contacting Mr. Jason Ritchie, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 425-227-2658.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability of the FONSI.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321
Mr. Daniel Czelusniak, Environmental Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Room 325, Washington, DC 20591; email
The USAF acted as the lead agency, and the FAA was a cooperating agency, in the preparation of the EA. The EA analyzed the potential environmental impacts of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) constructing a landing pad and improving infrastructure at Space Launch Complex 4 West (SLC-4W) at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), as well as conducting boost-backs and landings of the Falcon 9 first stage booster at SLC-4W or on a special-purpose barge, no less than 31 miles offshore in the Pacific Ocean. The EA was prepared in accordance with NEPA, CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, the USAF's Environmental Impact Analysis Process (32 CFR 989), and FAA Order 1050.1F,
As the activities considered in the EA would require Federal actions (as defined in 40 CFR 1508.18) involving the USAF and FAA, the EA was prepared to satisfy the NEPA obligations of both agencies. The FAA's Federal action in this matter pertains to its role in issuing licenses for the operation of commercial launch and reentry vehicles at launch sites. The USAF issued a FONSI on April 26, 2016, which stated that implementing the Proposed Action would not have a significant effect on the human environment. Based upon its independent review and consideration of the EA, the FAA formally adopts the EA—concurring with the EA's analysis of impacts and findings—and issues a FONSI to support the issuance of launch licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 boost-back and landing operations at VAFB or in the Pacific Ocean. If, in their license application to the FAA, SpaceX makes changes to their operations which fall outside the scope of the EA, additional environmental review would be required prior to the FAA issuing a license associated with such an application.
After reviewing and analyzing available data and information on existing conditions and potential impacts, the FAA has determined that issuing launch licenses to SpaceX for Falcon 9 boost-back and landing operations at VAFB or in the Pacific Ocean is a Federal action that would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of NEPA. The FAA made this determination in accordance with all applicable environmental laws and FAA regulations.
The FAA has posted the FONSI on the internet at
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Title: National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council (NEMSAC); Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.
Meeting Notice—National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council.
The NHTSA announces meeting of NEMSAC to be held in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. This notice announces the date, time, and location of the meetings, which will be open to the public, as well as opportunities for public input to the NEMSAC. The purpose of NEMSAC, a nationally recognized council of emergency medical services representatives and consumers, is to advise and consult with DOT and the Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS) on matters relating to emergency medical services (EMS).
The NEMSAC meeting will be held on December 1, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. EST, and that afternoon from 4:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., and on December 2, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST. A public comment period will take place on December 1, 2016 between 11:15 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. EST and on December 2, 2016 between 10:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m. EDT. NEMSAC committees will meet in the same location on Thursday, December 1, 2016 from 1:15 p.m. to 4 p.m. EST. Written comments for the NEMSAC from the public must be received no later than November 25, 2016.
The meetings will be held at the Washington Hilton, 1919 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20009. Attendees should plan to arrive 20 minutes early to check in for the meeting.
Susan McHenry, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Emergency Medical Services, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-140, Washington, DC 20590,
Notice of these meetings is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.). The NEMSAC is authorized under Section 31108 of the Moving
The tentative NEMSAC agenda includes the following:
Registration Information: This meeting will be open to the public; however, pre-registration is requested. Individuals wishing to attend must register online no later than November 25, 2016. For NEMSAC please register at:
For assistance with registration, please contact Susan McHenry at
Public Comment: Members of the public are encouraged to comment directly to the NEMSAC during designated public comment periods. In order to allow as many people as possible to speak, speakers are requested to limit their remarks to 5 minutes. Written comments from members of the public will be distributed to NEMSAC members at the meeting and should reach the NHTSA Office of EMS no later than November 25, 2016. Written comments may be submitted by either one of the following methods: (1) You may submit comments by email:
A final agenda as well as meeting materials will be available to the public online through
(a)
(b)
(A) Provide, by consensus, policy-level guidance to participating agencies on GHSA goals, objectives, and implementation.
(B) Facilitate interagency, multi-sectoral engagement to carry out GHSA implementation.
(C) Provide a forum for raising and working to resolve interagency disagreements concerning the GHSA.
(D) Review the progress toward and work to resolve challenges in achieving U.S. commitments under the GHSA, including commitments to assist other countries in achieving the GHSA targets. The Council shall consider, among other issues, the status of U.S. financial commitments to the GHSA in the context of commitments by other donors, and the contributions of partner countries to achieve the GHSA targets; progress toward the milestones outlined in GHSA national plans for those countries where the United States Government has committed to assist in implementing the GHSA and in annual work-plans outlining agency priorities for implementing the GHSA; and external evaluations of United States and partner country capabilities to address infectious disease threats, including the ability to achieve the targets outlined within the WHO Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool, as well as gaps identified by such external evaluations.
(E) Provide, by consensus, within 30 days of the date of this order, initial policy-level guidance on GHSA implementation.
(F) Develop a report on an annual basis regarding the progress achieved and challenges concerning the United States Government's ability to advance the GHSA across priority countries. The report shall include recommendations to resolve, mitigate, or otherwise address the challenges identified therein. The report shall be transmitted to the President and, to the extent possible, made publicly available.
(G) Conduct an overall review of the GHSA for submission to the President by September 2019. The review should include an evaluation of the progress achieved during the 5 years of this initiative, as well as any challenges faced. The report should also provide recommendations on the future direction of the initiative.
(c)
(a) The heads of agencies described in section 2(c) of this order shall:
(b) The Secretary of State shall:
(c) The Secretary of Defense shall:
(d) The Attorney General, generally acting through the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), shall:
(e) The Secretary of Agriculture shall:
(f) The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall:
(g) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:
(h) The Administrator for the United States Agency for International Development shall:
(i) The Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, shall:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR